# Who Supports The Official 9/11 Govt Cover Stories



## Terral (Apr 11, 2009)

Greetings to All:

  This thread is dedicated to answering the question about how many of you support the Official Government Cover Stories for these related 9/11 attacks. 

*Case #1: Flight 93/Shanksville*

  The Gov&#8217;t says Flight 93 crashed into this empty Shanksville field (my thread):







  The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . . 






  . . . and cannot be more than just a few feet deep. The evidence also says this hole (pic) was created &#8216;before&#8217; this US Geological Survey picture was taken on April 20, 1994. 

*Case #2: Flight 77/The Pentagon*

  The Gov&#8217;t says AA77 crashed into this standing E-ring wall (my thread) . . . 






  . . . going 530 miles per hour, when the evidence clearly says that no 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed here.






  The rear C-ring wall is only 220 feet (diagram) from the standing E-ring Wall, but the only evidence we have is a little 8 to 10-feet hole . . .






  . . . again saying that no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here; just like these military/aviation experts:

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA"]These Experts Say AA77 DID NOT Crash Here[/ame]

*Case #3: WTC-7 Controlled Demolition*


The Gov&#8217;t says WTC-7 Collapsed from building fires/debris, when the evidence shows the 47-story overbuilt skyscraper imploding into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds (my thread):

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Typical CD Implosion[/ame]






  The evidence shows a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper . . . 






  . . . collapsing CD-style into a neat little pile, while the buildings on the perimeter remain perfectly intact. Typical building fires burn at around 800-degrees (link), while red-iron structural steel melts at near 2800 degrees (link).  

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c"]YouTube - 9/11 Coincidences (Part Eight)[/ame]

  The reasons that WTC-7 could not possibly burn down from building fires is explained very well in this short video. A steel-framed skyscraper has never burned down in the history of this planet, but the Gov&#8217;t says that happened three times on 9/11; IF you believe the Official Cover Stories. 

Those among you voting &#8220;*Yes*&#8221; with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their inside-job cohorts should be prepared to provide evidence for &#8220;WHY&#8221; you hold to the Official Cover Stories having &#8216;nothing&#8217; whatsoever to do with the &#8216;evidence.&#8217; A &#8220;*No*&#8221; vote means that you realize the &#8216;evidence&#8217; simply does not even begin to match the Official Cover Stories.

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 11, 2009)

uh terral why create a duplicate thread of the 9/11 coverup commission fairy tale report??


----------



## Big_D (Apr 11, 2009)

Your poll question makes it seems that we either agree with the govt 100% or believe it was an inside job.  Couldn't someone disagree with the govt reports on a number of aspects and still not be convinced it was inside job?


----------



## Terral (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Inside Job and Big_D:



9/11 inside job said:


> uh terral why create a duplicate thread of the 9/11 coverup commission fairy tale report??



There is nothing in the OP about the 911Commission Report. You either agree (Yes) with the Gov't Cover Stories, OR the evidence simply does 'not' (No) add up. Period. 



Big_D said:


> Your poll question makes it seems that we either agree with the govt 100% or believe it was an inside job.



Big_D either agrees with the Official Gov't Cover Stories for 'his' good reasons (Yes), OR the evidence simply does not add up to what the Gov't is selling as 'their' conspiracy theory:






[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ"]You Believe This Guy OR You Do Not[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G1N7WCZ9c8"]Bush Is Lying, OR Telling The 911Truth[/ame]



Big_D said:


> Couldn't someone disagree with the govt reports on a number of aspects and still not be convinced it was inside job?



You either believe the Gov't explanations for the 9/11 attacks (Yes), OR the evidence does NOT add up (No). There is no room on the fence for your Big_D backside. :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## Big_D (Apr 11, 2009)

Thanks for the kind words but I do not think I really can answer the poll question since I only read small parts of the 9/11 commission and NIST report.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

Big_D said:


> Your poll question makes it seems that we either agree with the govt 100% or believe it was an inside job.  Couldn't someone disagree with the govt reports on a number of aspects and still not be convinced it was inside job?



no.....the  cover-up alone ....is treason..prior knowleadge is treason...an inside job...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 11, 2009)

eots said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> > Your poll question makes it seems that we either agree with the govt 100% or believe it was an inside job.  Couldn't someone disagree with the govt reports on a number of aspects and still not be convinced it was inside job?
> ...



exactly.well said.so terral is THAT why you made this thread was cause there is nothing in that other thread about the 9/11 commission?


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

ZOG supporting mind-slave reporting in.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> ZOG supporting mind-slave reporting in.



ZOG ? WTF ?...more media programed responses..and straw men


----------



## Dante (Apr 11, 2009)

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I wonder why the Popular Mechanics stories bother the thruthers so much?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 11, 2009)

DevNell said:


> www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> 
> I wonder why the Popular Mechanics stories bother the thruthers so much?



Because the goverment hired them to do it.Myself,Terral and Eots all proved it on the popular mechanics thread that they are a fairy tale as well just like the 9/11 coverup commission is.Popular Mechanics debunking that 9/11 wasnt an inside job is like asking Hitler to debunk gas chambers.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

DevNell said:


> www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> 
> I wonder why the Popular Mechanics stories bother the thruthers so much?



because its a ludicrous story that makes no sense...because a magazine has no place fronting the official lies ..as a replacement for a real peer reviewed investigation as requested by NIST directors........ 

listen to worm squirm under the exposure to logic and critical thinking


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEtfHkE2zYg]YouTube - Popular Memetics - Part 1 of 2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYOPJk2u64&feature=related]YouTube - Popular Memetics - Part 2 of 2[/ame]


----------



## Terral (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Dev:



DevNell said:


> www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> 
> I wonder why the Popular Mechanics stories bother the thruthers so much?



I wonder why none of the "Yes" voters have anything to write against the Flight 93, Pentagon and WTC-7 evidence from the OP of this thread. :0) I write my rebuttal to Jim Meigs and his band of editorial retards (here) on an old Loose Change thread if anybody is interested.

Those among you siding with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have *'no' evidentiary support* for drawing those conclusions; other than the fact that the world is filled with *Loyal Bushie DUPES* (pic and pic and pic) with nothing better to do than run to Conspiracy Theory Boards and pretend that '*no conspiracy exists*' cuckoo. 

That is like going ChristianForums.com to convince everybody that God does not exist, when you should be spending time writing about whatever you 'do' believe in. In the end, all the atheist has to share is his own 'unbelief,' and he still has more to share with others than *911Truth Deniers* (pic) . . .  

GL with that too,

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 11, 2009)

DevNell said:


> www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> 
> I wonder why the Popular Mechanics stories bother the thruthers so much?



Here is why you are a fool and a brainwashed dupe if you believe Popular mechanics.
Kevin Ryan who worked for Underwriters Laboratories- the steel company that supplied the steel for the trade towers,was fired by them when he started openingly disagreeeing and criticising the NIST report.This is his great articl he wrote on Popular Mechanics.


by Kevin Ryan


Global Research, March 13, 2007 
9/11 blogspot 


Email this article to a friend
Print this article 





When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US governments story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. Thats not to say that all of these people were part of the conspiracy. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials dont necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth. 

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people cant just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of global collapse, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.

From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted some of the top building design and engineering firms, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & OMara. To emphasize just how solid the governments story is, he adds that he also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. 

What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DODs Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & OMara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3] 

Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the Freedom Tower would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the There Goes Our Freedom Tower.


Getting back to those experts at BMSP, we see that DOD employs a number of consulting firms to help out Corley and Sozen, in what is called the Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), including ARUP, ARA, SAIC, SGH, Thornton-Tomasetti and Weidlinger Associates.[4] It should be noted that most of these firms were major contributors to the various official explanations for collapse of the WTC buildings, as well as being government contractors in fields related to terrorism. Strangely, despite their overwhelming expertise in the use of explosives, none of their explanations for the WTC events had anything to do with explosives. 

Thats not to say that these characters never deal with explosives, however, as Corley and Sozen were two of the four members of the Oklahoma City (OKC) engineering investigation, along with Paul Mlakar and Charles Thornton. The work they did followed the damage estimates found within the Federal Emergency Management Administrations (FEMA) OKC report, written by Greenhorne & OMara. Although none of these credentialed experts even toured the site at OKC, Corley and Sozen were able to produce an engineering report that was a highly questionable extrapolation of minimal evidence, primarily the size of a bomb crater, provided to them by the FBI.[5] Their report was created in support of the One Guy, One Truck Bomb political story that directly contradicted testimony given by several leading experts, including USAF General Benton Partin. 

After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Buildingwas not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level. He added No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of aterrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.[6]

When speaking about the unprecedented destruction of evidence, General Partin was referring to the demolition of the Murrah Building by Mark Loizeauxs company, just five days after Partin made his strong statements directly to the US Congress. But Partin might as well have been talking about the WTC six years later, where much of the steel evidence was destroyed in the month before engineering investigators began inspecting the scene. It was noted by the House Committee on Science, as they reviewed early shortcomings of the WTC investigation, that, Some of the critical pieces of steelwere gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.[7] At the time of this destruction of evidence, Gene Corley was in charge of the investigation and his OKC partner Charles Thorntons company was in charge of the site at Ground Zero.

In any case, it is clear that Rothschilds primary experts have a long history of involvement in US government interests, and in highly questionable engineering reports. But surely the engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country could not all be so tied to US government interests. There must be some objective members within the group of scientists supporting the Bush Administrations theories, and some agreement among scientists around the world.

The truth is that interpretation of the events at the WTC does include some agreement from all parties. We all agree that no tall steel-framed building in history has ever collapsed uniformly at nearly free-fall speed into a pile of rubble for any reason whatsoever, outside of demolition. And were in agreement that the first three occasions of such an event supposedly occurred all on the same day, all in the same place. To round out a quick agreement, we can all safely say that these improbable events were the emotional basis for the passing of legislation that had already been written (e.g. the Patriot Act), and for the invasion of several strategically-important countries, the plans for which were already in the works. 


From there, however, the views of the governments credentialed experts diverge from those who are more interested in objectively seeking the truth. The initial facts of agreement should lead any objective person to seek a detailed investigation that leaves no hypothesis un-examined. But for the governments credentialed experts, only one hypothesis was worthy of consideration, a fire-based failure of all three buildings that jibed with the overall official version of the events of that day.

In support of that fire-based triple play, the experts gave us a progression of false stories. The media gave us the first false story, with help from PhD engineers, some of whom were contributors to the official reports. Eduardo Kausel, an engineering professor at MIT and contributor to the WTC report generated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), suggested to us in Scientific American that this catastrophe was probably due to the jet fuel fires melting the steel in the buildings.[8] He was joined in this early theory by a handful of other PhD engineers and professors around the country, and by the US governments top suspect - Osama Bin Laden. The US State Department still promotes the melting steel theory by promoting the alleged confession video of the alleged Bin Laden, which Matthew Rothschild finds convincing as well. In this confession video, the credentialed expert Bin Laden said -- Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building..."[9] Apparently Bin Ladens plan was a complete failure after all, because even the experts now agree that jet fuel-accelerated office fires cannot melt steel (or Iron for that matter).

Another structural engineer who made early claims of melting steel, in the infamous 2002 Nova video Why the Towers Fell, was Matthys Levy. Mr. Levy was a principal at the BMAG consulting firm Weidlinger Associates that, later, with the help of many other PhD engineers, produced a report on the WTC disaster as part of an insurance claim by Larry Silverstein.[10] This Silverstein-Weidlinger investigation was based on extensive computer modeling and involved many of the same contractors that contributed to the government studies. Their final report told us that floor failure had nothing to do with the WTC disasters, but that the failure of columns alone, independent of the floors, explains the collapses.[11] At the time, Levy told us There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure.[12] 

Unfortunately, the credentialed experts were wrong again. Until NISTs final report came out in 2005, the Pancake Theory had replaced the column failure theory as the most widely accepted explanation for collapse. FEMA, along with a professor of Engineering from Northwestern, Zdenek Bazant, championed this theory of pancaking floors as the major explanation for the collapse of both towers, directly contradicting the Silverstein-Weidlinger report. This was strange, considering many of the same experts were involved in both the FEMA and Weidlinger investigations, including Gene Corley. 

Amazingly enough, just last summer NIST finally admitted that the explanation could not involve pancaking floors either, by saying NISTs findings do not support the pancake theory of collapse.[13] NISTs findings, first reported in their final draft report of October 2004 and built over a period of several years, originally consisted of two considerably different stories for the two towers. But NIST modified this nine months later in their final, final draft report, giving just one story for both towers about widely-dislodged fireproofing and sagging floors pulling the external columns inward, with no mention of pancaking. Their final, final collapse initiation sequence, the essence of their report, is now known to be false in every aspect.[14]


Through the years, NIST and the other official investigators ignored the demolition hypothesis completely, as can be seen from their reports and archived presentations. Thats not surprising though, as the scientists working for FEMA and NIST, and therefore for the Bush Administration, would not likely lead their investigation toward a result that would limit or stop the 9/11 Wars. For example John Gross of NIST and Therese McAllister of Greenhorne & OMara, who not only co-authored the most important sections of NISTs report, but were also primary authors of FEMAs report, continue to act deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to evidence for the demolition hypothesis.[15] And we can imagine that all those independent contractors who contributed to the ever-changing story, who were also consulting firms for the DODs interesting Blast Mitigation Action Group, would be hard-pressed to offer an explanation that would require a less militarily focused solution. 

The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know  mechanics.

This hasnt prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against conspiracy theorists, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they polled 300 experts to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PMs poll of structural engineering/building collapse experts actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, its a small world after all.

Its in PMs book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, that we find this survey. Here they include other figures like Forman Williams, although they fail to tell you that Dr. Williams was also a member of NISTs top advisory committee, and therefore was defending his own work. Williams is presented by PM as a disinterested academic expert, but one must wonder how disinterested Williams was when the University of California San Diego received $393 million in federal grants in 2005, the same year the NIST WTC report came out, with his own Engineering department receiving $44 million of that sum.[18] Another of PMs disinterested experts was Engineering professor Richard Fruehan of Carnegie Mellon University, an institute that received $100 million in federal grants that same year, with Engineering and research grants accounting for approximately half of the total. 

In the case of Popular Mechanics, we see people being quite openly deceptive in their strong support of the Bush Administrations terror story. In their book they promote false claims that the government no longer supports, including the Pancake Theory. They also promote other, more ridiculous ideas including the claim that massive damage was done to the basement levels of a WTC tower by a bolus of jet fuel that meandered its way through several elevator shafts in the jogged elevator system, moving carefully around the elevators themselves and waiting all the while to explode in the sub-basements over 90 stories below. Additionally, PM repeats the false and ludicrous claim that the buildings were designed for airliner impacts, but not for jet fuel fires. In fact, John Skilling, the actual chief engineer of the WTC, made it clear in 1993 that jet fuel fires were considered in the structural design.[19]

In the forward to PMs book, Republican Senator John McCain describes how he feels the truth behind September 11th is more mundane than conspiracy mongers would have us believe. Strangely, he refers us to the banality of Nazi evil to show that 9/11 was probably not an elaborate conspiracy. That is, according to McCain, 9/11 was probably NOT part of a simple plan by corporate-funded politicians to maintain and expand their power, but was instead the work of a small group of powerless fanatics whose plans to bring about worldwide totalitarian rule were held back only by our own cherished freedoms. Thats a tough bit to swallow, to be sure, but the idea that a Hearst publication would resort to the banality of Nazi evil is absolutely astounding. Thats because in writing this forward, Senator McCain joined an infamous group of Hearst publication authors, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering, who wrote for Hearst, the latter until 1938.[20] 

Those of us fighting for the truth about 9/11 owe it to the victims of the expanding 9/11 Wars, and to ourselves, to reveal these ongoing lies from corporate criminals and their credentialed experts. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those giving us one false story after another, while simultaneously ignoring much of the evidence of 9/11, might have more than just a cozy relationship with this government, and more than a benign past. It seems quite possible that some among those providing these explanations are knowingly complicit in the greater crime of a 9/11 cover-up.

It is also true that, like Matthew Rothschild, many of us simply want quick and easy answers, in order to relieve ourselves of any need to think about the facts of 9/11 and the changes in worldview that might be demanded of such an examination. The problem is, the easy answers have all been wrong, while at the same time the experts have ignored one fairly simple hypothesis that is now becoming obvious to many. It should be clear that this is because the credentialed experts weve been dealing with are all quite well invested in maintaining the official version of events. 

1. Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already, The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, September 11, 2006 Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already | The Progressive 

2. For a short description of DODs BMSP, see Department of Defense Should Broaden Communication Efforts to Protect Federal and Civilian Buildings From Bomb Attacks, The National Academy of Sciences, November 2001, Protecting People and Buildings from Terrorism: Technology Transfer for Blast-Effects Mitigation 

3. Missing Trillions: Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference, 911Research.com, 9-11 Research: Missing Trillions 

4. US Army Corps of Engineers, Blast Mitigation Action Group (BMAG), Consulting Firms, https://bmag.usace.army.mil/consulting_firms.php 

5. Blast Loading and Response of Murrah Building, Mlakar, Corley, Sozen, Thornton, 1997, http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pd...gineering2.pdf 

6. General Partins letter to Senator Lott can be found in its entirety in the Final Report on the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, April, 19,1995, The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee, Appendix, page 378-380. This letter is also reproduced here -http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm 

7. See Context of 'March 6, 2002: House Committee on Science Holds Hearing on WTC Collapses Investigation, Cooperative Research, Context of 'March 6, 2002: House Committee on Science Holds Hearing on WTC Collapses Investigation' 

8.When the Twin Towers Fell, Scientific American, October 9, 2001 Scientific American: Explore!: When the Twin Towers Fell: October 09, 2001 

9. The US State Department still appears to be promoting this first false theory by promoting Osama (Fatty) Bin Ladens baseless statements. US State Department website: The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories, http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...mfuaK0.2676355 

10. Profile: Weidlinger Associates, Cooperative Research Weidlinger Associates 

11. Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures, Engineering News-Record, 10/25/02, McGraw Hill Construction, http://www.construction.com/NewsCent.../20021025b.asp 

12. Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing, Engineering News-Record, 11/04/02 McGraw-Hill Construction | ENR - Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing 

13. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, August 2006, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions 

14. See my essay, What is 9/11 Truth?  The First Steps, at the Journal of 911 Studies, Journal of 9/11 Studies . Also see the critique of my presentation Review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, 911Research.com, 10/15/06 Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan 

15. See video of John Gross presentation at the University of Texas Austin, with testimonies and evidence of molten metal at the WTC. Project for New American Citizens, NIST Engineer, John Gross, Denies Reports About Molten Steel at the WTC | 911Blogger.com 

16. A 9/11 Conspiracy Virus is Sweeping the World, But it Has No Basis in Fact, George Monbiot, The Guardian, February 6, 2007, George Monbiot: A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact | Comment is free | The Guardian 

17. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Cant Stand up to the Facts, Dunbar & Reagan, Hearst Press, 2006. Note: See also Eduardo (melting steel) Kausels glowing review in the front cover.

18. See Fedspending.org, Grants, Welcome to FedSpending.org 

19. City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, James Glanz and Eric Lipton, (New York: Times Books, 2003), 138

20. Remembering The Chief, PBSs Online NewsHour, 9/07/00, Online NewsHour: The Chief -- September 7, 2000 


Global Research Articles by Kevin Ryan 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please support Global Research 
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.


----------



## Terral (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Inside Job with Eots and Retired Guy mentioned:



9/11 inside job said:


> so terral is THAT why you made this thread was cause there is nothing in that other thread about the 9/11 commission?



Are we trying to be dense or what? You are the one who brought up the 911Commission Report in Post #2; NOT ME. :0) You guys have a lot of trouble being understood in these ongoing 911Truth debates, because this Forum is being used as your personal chat room where nobody is quoted to give your words 'context' to something in the debate. Everyone knows exactly what I am talking about, because I took one second to 'quote >>' from your words in Post #6 that represents another private email chit-chat post adding nothing to this discussion at all (Post #14 looks better). My view is that you and Eots lower yourselves by pasting one-liner chit-chat messages back and forth with 911Truth Deniers with the sole intention of dragging you into their trolling stupidity. If I am to guess at what you (911 Inside Job) are talking about:

Every poll receives different percentages of yes and no votes by the way each poll question is presented. I see you voted. :0) I am going to assume that you are asking me about this thread versus Retired Guys *"Who Thinks 9/11 Was An Inside Job?" Poll* Thread (here). Just look at the evidence that Retired Guy includes for these people to make 'informed' conclusions about whether the 9/11 attacks were or were not an inside job. The guy pasted nine words under a a seven-word Topic Title and the "No" votes are running over 80 percent. This thread was started using evidence for each related 9/11 case (Flight 93, Pentagon, WTC-7), so the same members have every opportunity to carefully examine 'the evidence,' before running blindly to support Senor Bushie and his cohorts like Loyal Bushie DUPES (pic and pic) without one clue.  

What I am really looking for is the 'evidence' from one of these people siding with Senor Bush and the Official Cover Story that might explain the basis of their ongoing support. God knows the Official Cover Story is nothing like the 'evidence,' so perhaps the 'reasons' for anyone believing Loyal Bushie Lies will help us restructure our 911Truth Arguments with those things in mind . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Toro (Apr 11, 2009)

DevNell said:


> www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> 
> I wonder why the Popular Mechanics stories bother the thruthers so much?



Because it dismantles their arguments.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

Toro said:


> DevNell said:
> 
> 
> > www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> ...



hardly..its because it is trash ...we have researched it well with critical thinking and logic...unlike you


----------



## Toro (Apr 11, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



And lots of mind-altering, psychotropic drugs.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...


uh, sorry, you have not


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2009)

Toro said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


more than likely
and a lot of Alex Jones nonsense


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

here comes poor little retarded dive con...with his straw man and his denial.....lol


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

Toro said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



no just a  examination of the evidence,,,no rational thinking person would think the 911 commission report adequate or realistic...that simple... and only a complete idiot would be satisfied with a entertainment magazine being the voice of the official 911 story..but clearly you are the other kind


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2009)

eots said:


> here comes poor little retarded dive con...with his straw man and his denial.....lol


look who is calling someone retarded LOL


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 11, 2009)

With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...

Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...
> 
> Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.



the evidence is very real..just beyond your scope.....fact


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 11, 2009)

Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...



more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 11, 2009)

eots said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...
> ...



 Yeah ... you know you are suppose to mix that koolaide with water and drink it right?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2009)

eots said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...
> ...


have you eaten in a while
first you were talking about peas, now eggs
i think you are having a sugar low and need something to eat


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



more stupid programed responses...truly...I feel for you


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 11, 2009)




----------



## C-101 (Apr 11, 2009)

Terral said:


> The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . .



Little empty hole?

The hole is huge, look at the satellite image you posted.

Debris is everywhere and there is a massive scorch mark across the land.

Were you expecting an entire plane intact?  The fuselage blew up and burned out for crying out loud.



> . . . and cannot be more than just a few feet deep. The evidence also says this hole  was created before this US Geological Survey picture was taken on April 20, 1994.



Strange, the topographic version of the map tells a different story.

Your photo is of a reclaimed strip mine not a field, so there's obviously going to be holes there.

Nice try.



> The Govt says AA77 crashed into this standing E-ring wall
> 
> . . . going 530 miles per hour, when the evidence clearly says that no 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed here.



Perhaps you need to broaden your perspective of the crash site.









> The rear C-ring wall is only 220 feet  from the standing E-ring Wall, but the only evidence we have is a little 8 to 10-feet hole . . .



Little?  Do you honestly think that after crashing through a Pentagon ring a plane is going to maintain its structural integrity?

Seriously, give the engineers of the Pentagon some credit.  They didn't construct the building out of butter.



> . . . again saying that no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here; just like these military/aviation experts:



The aviator starts off with a lie right away about there being no aircraft wings, debris etc.








> The Govt says WTC-7 Collapsed from building fires/debris, when the evidence shows the 47-story overbuilt skyscraper imploding into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds



Yes, it did implode.  But it was because of the fact that the support columns gave way after retaining as much as 25% structural damage from the twin towers' collapse along with a 7 hour long diesel fuel fed fire according to the NIST.



> . . . collapsing CD-style into a neat little pile, while the buildings on the perimeter remain perfectly intact.



Perhaps you should get your eyes checked.

A huge chunk of the building below WTC7 in your picture is missing.



> Typical building fires burn at around 800-degrees while red-iron structural steel melts at near 2800 degrees (link).



I can't believe you people are still holding on to that misnomer.

The steel does not have to melt for the structure to collapse, but rather only needs to buckle under the pressure of retaining extraordinary downward weight at only half of its structural integrity.  A building fire fed by fuel, jet or diesel, will accomplish temperatures high enough to reduce steel strength by 50% which when combined with physical structural damage is more than enough to bring a building down.  



> The reasons that WTC-7 could not possibly burn down from building fires is explained very well in this short video. A steel-framed skyscraper has never burned down in the history of this planet, but the Govt says that happened three times on 9/11; IF you believe the Official Cover Stories.



I daresay 9/11 was more than a building fire.  The combination of a jet liner impact, jet fuel fed fires, unusual engineering design, and in WTC7's case, structural damage from the twin towers' collapse, is more than enough to bring three buildings down.

9/11 was an unprecedented incident and I would not expect any of those buildings to remain intact after what they went through. 



> Those among you voting *Yes* with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their inside-job cohorts should be prepared to provide evidence for WHY you hold to the Official Cover Stories having nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence. A *No* vote means that you realize the evidence simply does not even begin to match the Official Cover Stories.l



On the contrary.  It is your job to prove every detail of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you wish to assail an accepted truth you better have all bases covered with no holes in your opposing "reality".  Otherwise, you are no better than the very people you purport to call liars.

But for mere entertainment I like to mess with 9/11 "truthers" and their "theories" so I'm an exception to the rule.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST  report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 11, 2009)

That's messier than most plane crashes I've seen.


----------



## C-101 (Apr 11, 2009)

eots said:


> all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST  report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt




How did I know that this is the kind of response I would get?


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2009)

C-101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST  report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt
> ...



most likely because you know the bullshit your talking...and its true how uniformed you are so there is not much else you can say


----------



## C-101 (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> C-101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




That's rich.

In fact, that's deserving of thanks and a rep comment.


----------



## Terral (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Big D with Kalam, slackjawed, Eots and 9/11 Inside Job mentioned:

Now we are beginning to get somewhere. :0)



Big_D said:


> Thanks for the kind words but I do not think I really can answer the poll question since I only read small parts of the 9/11 commission and NIST report.



Let's get this straight: Big D cannot decide if this . . . 






. . . is the picture of 'an empty hole,' OR if this picture represents a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, because he has not read the 911CR, nor the NIST Report. :0) You either believe the Official Gov't Cover Stories (Yes) saying a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed through this . . . 






. . . standing E-ring Pentagon wall, OR you realize that the evidence simply DOES NOT (No) even begin to match the evidence. This is a very simple "Yes, I believe the Gov't," OR "No, I do not" question that everyone here holds to one way or the other. Why? This stuff is TOO SIMPLE: The Official Gov't Stories either add up (Yes) OR they do not (No). Period. If you cannot answer the simple OP question with a Yes or No, then you have no business writing on this topic cuckoo. Let's try this again:






Okay, hotshot: Do you agree that this picture is a crashed 100-ton Jetliner like Senor Bush and Karl Rove say (Yes), OR are you looking at the picture of 'an empty cotton-picking hole' (No)?? My eyes see 'an EMPTY HOLE,' which is the reason I voted "No" in the Poll that the Big_D is doing everything to excuse himself from answering honestly. 






Here is the close-up shot again from the Opening Post, so the cowards strutting around here can try and make up their minds if the Gov't Story that a 100-ton Jetliner crashed here is true OR false. :0) 






This is the size of the Jetliner you are missing and this . . . 






. . . is the size of the Jetliner in relation to the itsy, bitsy little empty hole with the News Videos shot on 9/11:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc"]YouTube - 9/11 Flight 93 Rare Footage[/ame]

The man says the little hole is 20 feet by 15 or 10 feet, but here is the little video clip again to help the Big_D out:

Click Here

Okay, Big_D, so let's try again: You either agree with Senor Bush and Dick Cheney that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into that little empty hole (like Kalam and slackjawed ), OR you agree with Terral, Eots and 9/11 Inside Job that the evidence supporting the Gov't Conspiracy Theory (pic) simply does NOT ADD UP. 

Hey man: If you are going to come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Forum and support the Official Gov't Cover Stories, then at least have the backbone to show us your reasons why. Even if 9/11 Inside Job is correct and you are nothing more than a DoD Disinformation Operative, then at least razzle dazzle us with some 'Disinformation' to make Senor Bush and Karl Rove eusa_liar look like they are telling 'the' 911Truth.

GL,

Terral


----------



## Terral (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Ms. Kitty:



KittenKoder said:


> With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...



Ms. Kitty here is the second sorry excuse coming to these Conspiracy Theory discussions like this (pic) showing blind loyalty to *the Official Cover Stories* in direct contradiction to '*the evidence*.' Let me get this straight right here: When Senor Bush and his lying adviser Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld turn out to be 9/11 Inside-job Bad Guys, then those among you voting "*Yes*" in support of *their Official Cover Story LIES* can join them in the lake of fire like '*all liars and murders*' (Rev. 21:8). Here we go again, Ms. Kitty:






You are either looking at the picture of a crashed 100-ton Jetliner (like this and this), like Senor Bush and Karl Rove say (*Yes*, I believe the Govt), OR you are looking at the picture of '*an empty hole*' (*No*, the Govt story does not add up). There is no room on the fence where the Gov't 'is' telling us 'the' 911Truth 'and' LYING at the very same time. Therefore, you are either standing in the Light and telling 'the truth' about this . . .






. . . little empty hole, OR you continue running around blindly supporting LIARS and MURDERERS of innocent Americans doing everything to cover their tracks through DoD Counterintelligence Disinformation Campaigns that throw a ton of dust into the air.



KittenKoder said:


> Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.



This has NOTHING to do with hating the Govt!!! Ms. Kitty is trying to derail the OP Poll Question using her typical diversionary stupidity, as if calling an 'empty hole' and 'empty hole' *from the EVIDENCE* means you hate the cotton-picking Govt! No. Your eyes either see a crashed 100-ton Jetliner . . .  







. . . OR they see &#8216;*AN EMPTY HOLE*.&#8217; Senor Bushie and Dick Cheney have *their own &#8220;Conspiracy Theory&#8221;* (pic) that either matches the evidence OR simply does not, which has everything to do with these murders of innocent Americans &#8216;and&#8217; NOTHING to do with liking or hating the Govt. 






  This is the standing E-ring Wall where &#8216;you&#8217; say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed (*Yes*, I believe the Govt Story), OR a real 100-ton Jetliner DID NOT (No, the Govt story does not add up) crash here like Jamie McIntyre said while standing directly in front of the Pentagon on 9/11:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm_cnFoMHjA"]YouTube - Live CNN Report of Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon[/ame]

The right answer for each related 9/11 Inside-job attack is &#8220;*No*,&#8221; because *the &#8216;evidence&#8217;* simply does NOT say what Senor Bush and Karl Rove are saying. Period. If you want to side with the Govt that Ms. Kitty &#8216;loves&#8217; so very much, then by all means show us *your &#8216;pictures&#8217;* of a crashed Flight 93 and Flight 77 to support that blind loyalty . . . 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## Terral (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi C-101:



C-101 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . .
> ...


 
  That picture (here) was taken on 4/20/1994. You Gov&#8217;t Cover Story Ops talk about the size of the empty &#8216;hole,&#8217; because of the lack of evidence for any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) 



C-101 said:


> Debris is everywhere and there is a massive scorch mark across the land.


 
  No. The empty hole . . . 






  . . . is definitely cut into an empty field. I see a man wearing a dark shirt and light-colored pair of pants walking to our left about noontime, but no signs of any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. In fact, we see grass growing on all the inclines/slopes . . . 






  . . . which again says that this little hole was created &#8216;before&#8217; the 9/11 attacks ever took place. Any &#8216;evidence&#8217; found &#8216;below&#8217; this unburned grass was obviously &#8216;planted&#8217; by the same Gov&#8217;t that you are here to blindly support . . . 



C-101 said:


> Were you expecting an entire plane intact? The fuselage blew up and burned out for crying out loud.


 
  No. We are still looking at pictures . . . 






  . . . of AN EMPTY HOLE . . . 






  . . . no matter how . . . 






  . . . you want to skin this 9/11 cat. Do not come to one of my 9/11 threads like this (pic) and expect to blow smoke up my skirt using nonsense and stupidity by asking silly straw man questions. You are missing about 100 tons of Jetliner evidence, because the Gov&#8217;t has been LYING from day one. 



C-101 said:


> Strange, the topographic version of the map tells a different story.
> 
> Your photo is of a reclaimed strip mine not a field, so there's obviously going to be holes there.
> 
> Nice try.


 
  LOL! This guy has no pictures of Flight 93 or AA77 crashed anywhere, but he has the wherewithal to recognize the little strip mine hole in the empty Shanksville field from *4/20/1994* (here). This is the same little empty hole in the same empty field that we see in all the Flight 93 pictures of the empty hole:







  And yet, C-101 wants to claim that we have tons and tons and tons of Jetliner debris in and around this little empty hole. No, that is not even a nice try . . . :0)



C-101 said:


> Perhaps you need to broaden your perspective of the crash site.


 
  Maybe you need to tell us more Loyal Bushie LIES, because no 100-ton Jetliner crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day. Period.






  This is a picture of the standing E-ring Wall where you want to say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour. :0) 






  Here is a broader view of the standing E-ring Wall where &#8216;you&#8217; and Senor Bushie and Karl Rove say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed on 9/11. C-101 is showing you E-ring roof &#8216;post collapse&#8217; pictures taken &#8216;after&#8217; 10:15 AM on 9/11, but the Pentagon was originally struck at *9:32 AM* (FAA Timeline) just about 45 minutes earlier. 



C-101 said:


> Little? Do you honestly think that after crashing through a Pentagon ring a plane is going to maintain its structural integrity?


 
  Listen here hotshot: Return to this 911Truth discussion in the time that C-101 has something more to offer than STUPID QUESTIONS that only insult our combined intellect. 






This is a picture of the North Tower entry hole created about 45 minutes &#8216;before&#8217; the Pentagon was attacked and you &#8216;can&#8217; see the wingtips extending on either end of the massive impact hole.






 This is the very location where &#8216;you say&#8217; AA77 crashed going 530 miles per hour and we see no signs of any wingtips and no massive hole and nothing whatsoever to tell us that a 100-ton Jetliner crashed here. 






  Here is a close-up shot from the left side of the little impact hole where you &#8216;can&#8217; see the undamaged SUV parked directly in front of Column Line (CL) #8. A man can stand on the roof of that green SUV and reach up to the second-story concrete slab elevation &#8216;and&#8217; *the two windows to the left *of the 18-feet 3-inch impact hole are *not even broken* (damage schematic)! Go ahead and explain to these readers how an almost 50-feet tall 100-ton Jetliner passed &#8216;over&#8217; that untouched SUV &#8216;and&#8217; under the still-intact second-story concrete slab &#8216;and&#8217; without breaking one third-story window to boot! :0) The temporary construction fence is thrown &#8216;back&#8217; in our direction and was not dragged into the building by any 100-ton Jetliner. The rear C-ring wall is only 220-feet from this location . . . 






  . . . so even on a 45-degree trajectory angle (pic) the 330 feet should have been covered by the 100-ton Jetliner in just *.39 seconds*, but the *two six-ton Rolls-Royce Engines* (pic) never came out the C-ring wall; not to mention the 60-ton Titanium frame:





   You are missing about 200 seats, massive wing sections and tail section, indestructible landing gear and engines, fuselage and the whole 9 cotton-picking yards! 



C-101 said:


> Seriously, give the engineers of the Pentagon some credit. They didn't construct the building out of butter.


 
  The masonry wall has nothing to do with the fact that you are missing 100 tons of evidence that a real Jetliner crashed here. Let&#8217;s give these military/aviation experts some credit for concluding that NO 100-ton Jetliner crashed here:

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA"]Believe These Guys OR C-101[/ame]



C-101 said:


> The aviator starts off with a lie right away about there being no aircraft wings, debris etc.


 
  The Official Cover Story says AA77 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon at 9:38 AM, which is either &#8216;the truth&#8217; OR a fabricated LIE. Do not sit there and talk about missing wings, when you are missing a 100-ton Jetliner! You do NOT even have the massive impact hole saying a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon &#8216;and&#8217; you are missing the cotton picking Jetliner too! :0) 



C-101 said:


> Yes, it did implode. But it was because of the fact that the support columns gave way after retaining as much as 25% structural damage from the twin towers' collapse along with a 7 hour long diesel fuel fed fire according to the NIST.


 
  Now this guy is passing from realm nonsense to the absolute ridiculous! The Official Cover Story says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris and WTC-1 is 350 feet away from WTC-7 (pic). 






  Here is a picture of WTC-7 collapsing &#8216;and&#8217; you see *no fire through the unbroken windows* saying there is NO damage from either Twin Towers collapse. And yet . . .






  . . . &#8220;all&#8221; of the WTC-7 2800-degree columns, beams, girders and bar-joists were &#8216;*severed*&#8217; to send the overbuilt skyscraper down into its own footprint in just 6.6 seconds. No building fire and no building debris can &#8216;*cut*&#8217; all of these *&#8216;Compartmentalized&#8217; steel supports at the very same &#8216;time&#8217; *to create a CD-like Implosion, unless a Demolition Crew wired the building for the CD Implosion. :0) The silly &#8220;pancake&#8221; argument has no merit at all, because we are not looking at 47 concrete slabs piled one atop the other; because we are looking at *a typical Controlled Demolition Job* carried out with military precision. 

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIP52rru7Y"]YouTube - WTC 7 Collapse Explanation Explosives[/ame]

 The little video was taped in Italian, but the 911Truth of WTC-7 Controlled Demolition remains perfectly clear . . . 



C-101 said:


> Perhaps you should get your eyes checked.


 
  My eyes are working just fine. Thank you very much. C-101 is here to defend the Official Gov&#8217;t Cover Story using nothing more than nonsense and utter stupidity, but my eyes need to be checked. BTW, I just passed my driver&#8217;s license eye test good until 2017 without any eyeglasses. :0) 



C-101 said:


> A huge chunk of the building below WTC7 in your picture is missing.


 
  LOL! WTC-7 was brought down into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds, when the FDNY predicted the collapse amid many CD pre-explosions. You are making *my CD case* (my thread), because WTC-7 collapsed* &#8216;symmetrically&#8217; straight down*; which means the massive steel supported were *&#8216;severed&#8217; simultaneously like in any CD Implosion Job*. A chunk of WTC-7 missing would force the massive skyscraper to lean in a particular direction &#8216;and&#8217; that never happened in *this &#8216;symmetrical collapse.&#8217; *



C-101 said:


> I can't believe you people are still holding on to that misnomer.


 
  I can believe that C-101 is here to defend the Official Cover Story LIES, even though all of *the &#8216;evidence&#8217; *clearly shows the Govt is LYING (like you). Typical building fires burn at around 800 degrees &#8216;and&#8217; for an average of only 20 minutes (link again), but WTC-7 shows no fires through the unbroken windows anyway. :0) 



C-101 said:


> The steel does not have to melt for the structure to collapse, but rather only needs to buckle under the pressure of retaining extraordinary downward weight at only half of its structural integrity.


 
  There is no heat source in WTC-7 to melt or soften one pound of 2800-degree red-iron structural steel. Period! I have over 30 years of General Contracting/Demolition experience (#3), so do not try to lecture me about the structural integrity of anything. Heat energy travels from the hot to the cold areas of the massive steel-framed network far quicker than any single component can be soften to buckle. That means the massive steel columns directly adjacent to the heat source will transfer that heat energy to adjacent beams and columns, before one pound of 2800-degree steel is softened. Even if you had sufficient 2800-degree heat energy applied directly to every WTC-7 column at the same time (and you did not), then the heat energy would be absorbed by the entire steel-framed network to be transferred to the ground through the massive concrete/steel pads supporting each column. Your problem is that all WTC-7 columns included *3-hour spray-on fireproofing insulation *(911Research.com) and all steel supports were *&#8216;Compartmentalized&#8217; *by solid concrete slabs horizontally &#8216;and&#8217; curtain walls vertically; not to mention the gypsum wallboard encasing each column from any potential fire. This C-101 guy obviously has no idea about what he is talking about . . . 



C-101 said:


> A building fire fed by fuel, jet or diesel, will accomplish temperatures high enough to reduce steel strength by 50% which when combined with physical structural damage is more than enough to bring a building down.


 
  Bullony! Once again this guy has no clue . . . First of all, WTC-7 was NOT struck by any Jetliner. Secondly, any diesel fuel hydrocarbon fire burns at FAR below the required temperatures (911Research.com). Your hydrocarbon fire *&#8216;maximum gas temperature&#8217;* is still more than 1000 degrees too low &#8216;and&#8217; the massive steel-frame network still transports any heat energy &#8216;away&#8217; from the heat source to the cooler areas more quickly than any single component can be heated beyond even the &#8216;fire&#8217; temperature. This guy is pretending that I can place diesel fuel inside a 47-story overbuilt skyscraper, toss in a match, and run away, for the entire structure to implode into a neat little pile. :0)  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c[/ame]

Anyone with any doubt about open-air hydrocarbon fires taking down skyscrapers (heh) should watch this little short video. No. The simple 911Truth is that WTC-7 was taken down using *Controlled Demolition* (AE911Truth.org), just like these professional architects and engineers have been saying all along. This C-101 guy is here to defend Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld if they say Santa Claus crashed into the Pentagon going 530 miles per hour and Rudolph was injured in the attack. Yes. Loyal Bushie DUPES (pic and pic and pic) abound . . . 

  GL, 

Terral


----------



## C-101 (Apr 12, 2009)

Terral said:


> H
> 
> The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . .
> 
> ...



Try again.










> . . . you want to skin this 9/11 cat. Do not come to one of my 9/11 threads like this  using nonsense and stupidity by asking silly straw man questions. You are missing about 100 tons of Jetliner evidence, because the Gov&#8217;t has been LYING from day one.



Ooh, it appears I have touched a nerve.

Explain these eyewitness accounts.



> Crash Witnesses Accounts:
> 
> "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."
> 
> ...





> LOL! This guy has no pictures of Flight 93 or AA77 crashed anywhere, but he has the wherewithal to recognize the little strip mine hole in the empty Shanksville field from *4/20/1994* . This is the same little empty hole in the same empty field that we see in all the Flight 93 pictures of the empty hole:
> 
> And yet, C-101 wants to claim that we have tons and tons and tons of Jetliner debris in and around this little empty hole. No, that is not even a nice try . . . :0)






















> The Official Cover Story says AA77 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon at 9:38 AM, which is either &#8216;the truth&#8217; OR a fabricated LIE. Do not sit there and talk about missing wings, when you are missing a 100-ton Jetliner! You do NOT even have the massive impact hole saying a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon &#8216;and&#8217; you are missing the cotton picking Jetliner too! :0)







































Perhaps you should take a time out.



> Now this guy is passing from realm nonsense to the absolute ridiculous! The Official Cover Story says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris and WTC-1 is 350 feet away from WTC-7
> 
> Here is a picture of WTC-7 collapsing &#8216;and&#8217; you see *no fire through the unbroken windows* saying there is NO damage from either Twin Towers collapse. And yet . . .
> 
> ...















> There is no heat source in WTC-7 to melt or soften one pound of 2800-degree red-iron structural steel. Period! I have over 30 years of General Contracting/Demolition experience (#3), so do not try to lecture me about the structural integrity of anything. Heat energy travels from the hot to the cold areas of the massive steel-framed network far quicker than any single component can be soften to buckle. That means the massive steel columns directly adjacent to the heat source will transfer that heat energy to adjacent beams and columns, before one pound of 2800-degree steel is softened. Even if you had sufficient 2800-degree heat energy applied directly to every WTC-7 column at the same time (and you did not), then the heat energy would be absorbed by the entire steel-framed network to be transferred to the ground through the massive concrete/steel pads supporting each column. Your problem is that all WTC-7 columns included *3-hour spray-on fireproofing insulation * and all steel supports were *&#8216;Compartmentalized&#8217; *by solid concrete slabs horizontally &#8216;and&#8217; curtain walls vertically; not to mention the gypsum wallboard encasing each column from any potential fire. This C-101 guy obviously has no idea about what he is talking about . . .



The fire raged for 7 hours, not three so fire proofing is not sufficient.  Furthermore, diesel fuel tanks were present in all apartments with one large tank at the center, fueling the fire.

Fuel-fed fires along with as much as 25% structural damage from the collapse of WTC1 combined with the fact that WTC7 support columns were unusually stressed through poor design is plenty cause for the tower to collapse.

If even one column fails the rest of the structure will systematically crash due to the unfortunate design of the building.




> Bullony! Once again this guy has no clue . . . First of all, WTC-7 was NOT struck by any Jetliner. Secondly, any diesel fuel hydrocarbon fire burns at FAR below the required temperatures . Your hydrocarbon fire *&#8216;maximum gas temperature&#8217;* is still more than 1000 degrees too low &#8216;and&#8217; the massive steel-frame network still transports any heat energy &#8216;away&#8217; from the heat source to the cooler areas more quickly than any single component can be heated beyond even the &#8216;fire&#8217; temperature. This guy is pretending that I can place diesel fuel inside a 47-story overbuilt skyscraper, toss in a match, and run away, for the entire structure to implode into a neat little pile.



No, instead it was struck by the collapse of a 110 story building.

Once again you are spewing that melting nonsense.

Steel does not have to melt in order for it to give away.

And if you classify the WTC7 as a "neat" collapse when it clearly took a large chunk of a nearby building, you have serious problems with facts.



> Anyone with any doubt about open-air hydrocarbon fires taking down skyscrapers should watch this little short video.



Why do you ignore existing structural damage?  This is not a stupid building fire.  Two jet liners hit the WTC and the twin towers collapse severely damaged WTC7.

If you refuse to consider that a massive jet liner might do some harm to the structural integrity of building then you are just irrational.


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

C-101 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > H
> ...



and cause all three buildings to collapse at free fall speed into its own footprint...irrational


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

so Kevin Ryan of underwriters the suppliers of the steel for wtc....finds your facts..ridiculous ..as does the designer of the building...but popular mechanics,,,has other ideas

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBwJnYOf3Ag]YouTube - WTC designer about the durability of buildings (PL)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk]YouTube - Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 1 of 2[/ame]


so how did popular mechanics tell you to spin this one ???


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> so Kevin Ryan of underwriters the suppliers of the steel for wtc....finds your facts..ridiculous ..as does the designer of the building...but popular mechanics,,,has other ideas
> 
> YouTube - WTC designer about the durability of buildings (PL)
> 
> ...


except Kevin Ryan was fired from UL because he was lying


----------



## C-101 (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:
			
		

> and cause all three buildings to collapse at free fall speed into its own footprint...irrational



You should look at this picture again.






And notice that

A)  A small portion of WTC 6 is standing.

B)  WTC 5 is severely damaged but for the most part is still standing.

C)  The debris from WTC 1 is everywhere, indicating that damage was indeed done to the surrounding buildings and 

D)  This picture . . .






Indicates that WTC 7 took on a huge amount of falling debris from the twin towers.

Edit:  More info.

In this picture you can clearly see the structural failure of WTC 7.






Referring to this diagram, you can see why the fault caused the collapse.






The fault line goes through Truss 1 and Truss 2 on the east side of WTC 7.

This failure transferred unbearable weight to nearby columns above and below the trusses which then gave away followed by a chain reaction of support failure throughout the building.

There were no explosives.  All it took was for one section of the building to give away and the resulting load transfer was too much for the remaining supports to handle.

Hence, a chain reaction free fall originating from the fault which is clearly visible in the pictures.


----------



## Toro (Apr 12, 2009)

No, no, no, no!

WTC 1, 5 & 6 were all blown up too!

For example, they turned the power off in those buildings occasionally I'm pretty sure, and Larry Silverstein also said "pull" on those buildings, or if he didn't, he _thought_ he would say it...


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so Kevin Ryan of underwriters the suppliers of the steel for wtc....finds your facts..ridiculous ..as does the designer of the building...but popular mechanics,,,has other ideas
> ...



really do you8 have a link for that shit for brains ?..that said he was fired for lying
no,,,of course you don't


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

Toro said:


> No, no, no, no!
> 
> WTC 1, 5 & 6 were all blown up too!
> 
> For example, they turned the power off in those buildings occasionally I'm pretty sure, and Larry Silverstein also said "pull" on those buildings, or if he didn't, he _thought_ he would say it...



do you think your...funny...witty...because your not... you are idiot...that cant address facts.... so you make flailing attempts to distracted from that reality...with your nonsense.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


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


even if i had one, i wouldnt post it for you
you guys would only find another excuse to ignore the facts


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



thats the way shit for brains supports all his lies...pathetic


----------



## Toro (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > No, no, no, no!
> ...



I've addressed the WTC7 nonsense repeatedly, but you foilers keep repeating the same silliness over and over.

And yes, I do think I'm funny.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


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


not only have i done it before, i've seen TONS of others do it
and you do the same thing for every post
you claim its a PM or government cover story
so, why should i bother to take the time to actually do research for you and your idiot minions to dismiss just as you have all the rest


sorry, but doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different results is a sign of insannity

i refuse to play your game of insannity


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

Toro said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



no you ignored the science and the patriots expertise in favor of regurgitating popular mechanics...because you put more faith in what is essentially entertainment magazine sub-contracted by the government to spread dis-info...over these men of service and conscience...and that is all you have done.....

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


----------



## Toro (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> no you ignored the science and the patriots expertise in favor of regurgitating popular mechanics...because you put more faith in what is essentially entertainment magazine sub-contracted by the government to spread dis-info...over these men of service and conscience...and that is all you have done.....
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



I have not ignored science and I have not ignored any patriots.  Repeatedly, academic studies from the sciences and engineering departments and firms have been posted here refuting what you are arguing, yet we continue to have these inane discussions.


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

Toro said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no you ignored the science and the patriots expertise in favor of regurgitating popular mechanics...because you put more faith in what is essentially entertainment magazine sub-contracted by the government to spread dis-info...over these men of service and conscience...and that is all you have done.....
> ...



none of your so called academic studies are peer reviewed..they have no access to classified information and more often than not link right back to the so called experts used by.....popular mechanics....and yes you do ingnore these real life experts and patriots


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


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


if PM links to "peer reviewed experts" then its not PM making that call
sheeesh


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > toro said:
> ...



i thought i told you to f-off ?


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

What you need to know about "Peer-review" | 911Blogger.com


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> What you need to know about "Peer-review"
> 
> What you need to know about "Peer-review" | 911Blogger.com


whats that got to do with the fact that if PM LINKS to someone else making the call, that it ISNT PM MAKING the call?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


as if i'm going to start listening to you NOW


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



well that would be a diffrent response..to expect that is insanity by your definition....


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you might be learning
LOL


----------



## Toro (Apr 12, 2009)

eots said:


> none of your so called academic studies are peer reviewed..they have no access to classified information and more often than not link right back to the so called experts used by.....popular mechanics....and yes you do ingnore these real life experts and patriots
> 
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



*Of course they are peer reviewed.*  Do you have any idea how a paper gets published in an academic journal?  It _must_ be peer reviewed.


----------



## eots (Apr 12, 2009)

Submitted by ProfJones on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 12:07pm. 
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

*Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.*

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

*BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.*

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the *"imprimatur of peer-review". *That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...


What you need to know about "Peer-review" | 911Blogger.com


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 13, 2009)

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > DevNell said:
> ...



exactly.the only ones on mind altering drugs are you Bush dupes Toro.I proved with my fourth post on page one -the long one,how it is a croak of shit.You always run off with your tail between your legs anytime i ask you to debunk my 47 canada wants the truth videos since we both know you CANT debunk them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 13, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...
> 
> Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.



Like the conspiracy theory with fantasy evidence the 9/11 commission and popular mechanics came up with that 19 muslim highjackers and bin laden were behind the attacks and that the planes and fire caused the collapse of the towers? and sure, for someone on drugs and in denial his facts would sound like x file facts.LOl.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 13, 2009)

eots said:


> C-101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



exactly.another Bush dupe here obviously in denial.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 13, 2009)

When you make a reasonable poll I will participate.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 13, 2009)

of course the Bush dupes will ignore this but according to 8 flight controllers at FAA,the air trafiic controllers tape recordings of the high jackings that took place were destroyed by a supervisor.They said he took it out and crushed it in his hand and scattered the tapes into pieces into different trashcans.yet the guy did not go to jail,yeah right,no inside job.Lol.lets see you guys do something like that and see if you dont go to jail for something major like that.LOL.how much more foolish do you Bush dupes want to make yourselfs look like by living in denial that it was an inside job? LOL


----------



## C-101 (Apr 13, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> of course the Bush dupes will ignore this but according to 8 flight controllers at FAA,the air trafiic controllers tape recordings of the high jackings that took place were destroyed by a supervisor.They said he took it out and crushed it in his hand and scattered the tapes into pieces into different trashcans.yet the guy did not go to jail,yeah right,no inside job.Lol.lets see you guys do something like that and see if you dont go to jail for something major like that.LOL.how much more foolish do you Bush dupes want to make yourselfs look like by living in denial that it was an inside job? LOL


Hint:  Insulting and labeling people will not convince them of anything, you "foolish dupe".


----------



## Toro (Apr 13, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



A "croak" of shit!  

I have debunked every single one of your blessed 47 videos with my 3,000+ videos you refuse to watch.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 14, 2009)

Toro said:


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



Lies as usual.yeah I realised I mispelled that later on but never got around to fixing it. your lying as usual because I have asked you at LEAST 3 times to show me those alleged 3000 plus videos you say you have and you have only shown me "ONE"  and that was the one were you made that thread with your latest and desperate pathetic attempt to prove popular mechanics and the 9/11 commission was telling the truth.why dont you just admit the truth that we both know which is you DONT have 3000 plus videos.


----------



## Toro (Apr 14, 2009)

Popular Mechanics rocks, and you know it.


----------



## Terral (Apr 17, 2009)

Hi C-101:

  You really want to stand and defend the Official Cover Stories for the 9/11 attacks! Great! :0) 



C-101 said:


> Try again.


 
C-101&#8217;s picture link

This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make &#8216;my&#8217; case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here (my thread).



C-101 said:


> Explain these eyewitness accounts.


 
  No. Your job is to prove that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole:








  Use all of the eyewitnesses you wish, but we are still looking at pictures of AN EMPTY HOLE.



C-101 said:


> http://www.layscience.net/files/wtc/7.jpg


 
  First of all, hotshot, you are hotlinking pictures from other websites, which is a no-no. If you are not going to take a few minutes to download and upload pics to your own Photobucket account, then have the common courtesy  of providing &#8216;links&#8217; (pic) to your photographs. 










 Your little picture shows one little piece of planted evidence, which means you are short about 100-tons in proving that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole. :0)



C-101 said:


> C101&#8217;s pic


 
  Now C-101 is showing us more &#8216;planted&#8217; evidence where he is willing to say this little piece of rusty engine, found UNDER the growing grass, is part of a real 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engine like this:







  Note that his little piece of engine can fit inside the back of one pickup truck &#8216;and&#8217; just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket that &#8216;planted&#8217; the little engine part in the first place. 






  You are still missing the massive wing sections and two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines (like this) and 60 tons of high-grade titanium frame, over 200 seats (pic), indestructible landing gear (pic) and a massive tail section that stands almost 50 feet tall (pic). This guy is passing off a few pounds of planted rusty metal for a missing 100-ton Jetliner and we are supposed to be impressed. :0) 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA[/ame]

Maybe watching this Military/Aviation Expert Testimony Video will help. :0) 



C-101 said:


> C-101&#8217;s pic
> 
> C-101 Commentary >> Perhaps you should take a time out.


 
  BTW, pasting a ton of Pentagon pictures without any commentary only works to support &#8216;my&#8217; hypothesis that AA77 Never Crashed At The Pentagon. Once again you are missing about 100 tons of AA77 EVIDENCE and we are reduced to talking about the little E-ring and C-ring holes. :0)  



C-101 said:


> C-101&#8217;s pic



We can agree that &#8216;a jet&#8217; did in fact hit the Pentagon at *9:36:27 AM* (my thread), but these parts have been identified as belonging to a *retrofitted A-3 Skywarrior* (story and story and story) having nothing to do with any 100-ton Jetliner.  This guy is posting pictures of the crashed *retrofitted/painted-up A-3 Jet *(pic) that crashed into the Pentagon exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds &#8216;after&#8217; the original *9:31:39 AM Missile Strike* (my 9:31 thread) that *injured April Gallop* (link and link). 



C-101 said:


> C-101&#8217;s pic


 
  This is a picture of the generator fence where the 9:31:39 AM missile plowed through going more than the speed of sound to strike the Column Line (CL) 14 location on a *45-degree angle* (pic). What Mr. C-101 is supposed to be showing us are his picture of AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. The funny part is that he is passing off pictures of downed fence as his crashed Jetliner. :0)





 This is a picture of the standing E-ring wall &#8216;after&#8217; the attacks and Mr. C-101 here has no impact hole to accommodate his missing fantasy 100-ton Jetliner. :0) 



C-101 said:


> C-101 pic and C-101 pic
> 
> C-101 Commentary >> The fire raged for 7 hours, not three so fire proofing is not sufficient. Furthermore, diesel fuel tanks were present in all apartments with one large tank at the center, fueling the fire.


 
  Bullony! We have pictures of WTC-7 in full freefall mode . . . 






  . . . and you can see NO fires through the unbroken windows. There is no &#8216;raging&#8217; fire in WTC-7 but only your &#8216;raging bull.&#8217; Hydrocarbon fires do NOT burn nearly hot enough to melt one pound of WTC-7 *2800-degree* (link) structural steel.  

  [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c[/ame]

  Maybe you missed the video. :0)



C-101 said:


> Fuel-fed fires along with as much as 25% structural damage from the collapse of WTC1 combined with the fact that WTC7 support columns were unusually stressed through poor design is plenty cause for the tower to collapse.


 
  Bullony. C-101 is just &#8216;talking&#8217; without any idea of what he is even talking about. WTC-1 was *350 feet &#8216;away&#8217;* (pic) from WTC-7 and also collapsed straight down into its own footprint. C-101 is trying to make a *&#8216;Building Fires/Debris Did It&#8217; case* by running his lips, when his silly argument can only create damage on *&#8216;one side&#8217; of WTC-7* on the side facing the North Tower. :0) The problem with his theory is that WTC-7 also collapsed *straight down &#8216;symmetrically&#8217;* with the center of the building leading the implosion process (pic) like any typical Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org). If C-101&#8217;s theory had any merit (and it DOES NOT), the WTC-7 would have leaned over towards the one &#8216;damaged&#8217; side to perhaps fall over like a big tree in the forest. C-101 is willing to ignore all of the &#8220;*Pull It*&#8221; (my thread) lingo from Larry Silverstein and all of the massive explosions connected to this obvious Controlled Demolition:

WTC-7 The Smoking Gun Video << Good stuff. :0)



C-101 said:


> If even one column fails the rest of the structure will systematically crash due to the unfortunate design of the building.


 
  In other words, a real Demolition Supervisor (#3) need only throw diesel fuel into a 47-story skyscraper, throw in a match, and the whole thing will come tumbling down into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. This guy has no clue at all . . . :0) 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## C-101 (Apr 17, 2009)

Terral said:


> This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make &#8216;my&#8217; case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here



Why are you expecting a jet liner to be intact?  This was not your typical jet skidding into the ground.

Why else would I post eyewitness accounts?  To demonstrate that this is a very unusual plane crash that is on whole unprecendented.

The pictures illustrate that:

A)  There is a massive debris field everywhere, indicating that yes, a jet liner crashed here.  (Which should have been obvious in the first place.) 

B)  The accounts of multiple witnesses are correct.  The plane did not merely skid on the ground, but rather it did two things. 

    1)  It crashed nose down and lost a considerable amount of its airframe including an engine which went deep into the forest ahead of it.

    2)  The plane blew up before it hit the ground or after it hit the ground.

Point two is supported by the picture of a mushroom cloud dissipating over the crash site.  Whether it blew up before impact or afterwards is unknown but the pictures show that the plane did indeed blow up.

Some people have speculated based on cell phone calls that the terrorists may have had a bomb on board.


> Use all of the eyewitnesses you wish, but we are still looking at pictures of AN EMPTY HOLE.



You must be delusional or blind because there is debris EVERYWHERE and if you were actually looking for the truth it would not be hard to find more pictures of the crash site with an abundant amount of debris.













> First of all, hotshot, you are hotlinking pictures from other websites, which is a no-no. If you are not going to take a few minutes to download and upload pics to your own to your photographs.



Do you think I care what you consider to be appropriate or inappropriate?

No, I care about you responding to the evidence presented and debunking it if you can.



> Your little picture shows one little piece of planted evidence, which means you are short about 100-tons in proving that Flight 93 crashed into this little empty hole.



Show me the evidence that this was planted.



> Now C-101 is showing us more &#8216;planted&#8217; evidence where he is willing to say this little piece of rusty engine, found UNDER the growing grass, is part of a real 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engine like this:


 
1)  What evidence is there that this is planted evidence?

2)  What grass?  All I see is dirt.

3)  The engine is only partially dug up.

4)  You have serious problems if you think that a engine is going to stay in one piece after a crash like that.

Also, it is important to note that 95% of the Flight 93 debris was recovered.



> Note that his little piece of engine can fit inside the back of one pickup truck &#8216;and&#8217; just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket that &#8216;planted&#8217; the little engine part in the first place.



Well what do you know.  You hit the nail on the head right there.  It is in fact a "little piece of engine".  Thanks for proving my previous point.  (Point 4)



> You are still missing the massive wing sections and two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines  and 60 tons of high-grade titanium frame, over 200 seats , indestructible landing gear (pic) and a massive tail section that stands almost 50 feet tall . This guy is passing off a few pounds of planted rusty metal for a missing 100-ton Jetliner and we are supposed to be impressed. :0)



Look above.  The plane blew up, disintegrated, and crash investigators reported that countless pieces of debris were present with very few big pieces.



> Maybe watching this Military/Aviation Expert Testimony Video will help. :0)



Yes, that did help my argument in my original response.

Thanks for posting a video that lies right away about there being no plane at the Pentagon.



> BTW, pasting a ton of Pentagon pictures without any commentary only works to support &#8216;my&#8217; hypothesis that AA77 Never Crashed At The Pentagon. Once again you are missing about 100 tons of AA77 EVIDENCE and we are reduced to talking about the little E-ring and C-ring holes.



Do you need professional help?  Let me help you.

If a plane:

>>>>>>

Hits a building:

>>>>>           [                 ]


The plane is not going to stay intact.

In fact, it is going to BLOW UP.






Now what happens when a plane blows up?

It breaks apart into MILLIONS of pieces and those pieces often disintegrate in the instant heat of the blast and ensuing fire.

So, no, the plane is not going to stay in one piece like some cartoon but rather burst apart.

Amazing, is it not?



> We can agree that &#8216;a jet&#8217; did in fact hit the Pentagon.





Your "retrofit" picture looks so comical.  There are no A-3 engines on your "retrofit", the wings are different, and even the airframe is different especially on the belly.

And what evidence is there that there even was a second plane hit later in the day?

First responders were on the scene in no time.

You would think that someone would notice a separate small plane hitting the Pentagon but I guess not.

More to come later, I'm busy right now.

Edit:  More info. updated



> This is a picture of the generator fence where the 9:31:39 AM missile plowed through going more than the speed of sound to strike the Column Line (CL) 14 location on a 45-degree angle (pic). What Mr. C-101 is supposed to be showing us are his picture of AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. The funny part is that he is passing off pictures of downed fence as his crashed Jetliner. :0)



The plane's wing ripped the fence apart and you can see from a bird's eye view that the generator was in fact moved by the wing.

Hint:  A missile does not move a generator without blowing up prematurely.



> This is a picture of the standing E-ring wall &#8216;after&#8217; the attacks and Mr. C-101 here has no impact hole to accommodate his missing fantasy 100-ton Jetliner.



You select the worst photos for analyzing the crash.  (And I have a good suspicion as to why.)

This is much better.






Did you put your glasses on?  Good.

Now, if you will kindly direct your eyes to the first floor you will notice a gaping hole that is more than large enough for a 757.

The plane hit the first floor and this is supported by the break out on the opposite side of the ring which is on ground level.



> Bullony! We have pictures of WTC-7 in full freefall mode . . .
> 
> and you can see NO fires through the unbroken windows. There is no &#8216;raging&#8217; fire in WTC-7 but only your &#8216;raging bull.&#8217; Hydrocarbon fires do NOT burn nearly hot enough to melt one pound of WTC-7 2800-degree (link) structural steel.



That's because the fires are on the opposite side of building, genius.  You know, where WTC 1 collapsed onto WTC 7?

I still do not understand why you think steel has to melt in order for a building to fall.

Steel only has to hit 1000 degrees Fahrenheit for 50% of its integrity to be compromised.  At 1800 degrees, steel strength is at only 10%.  The diesel fed fires are calculated to be around 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The building rubble alone in the aftermath was about 1300 degrees Fahrenheit.



> Bullony. C-101 is just &#8216;talking&#8217; without any idea of what he is even talking about. WTC-1 was 350 feet &#8216;away&#8217; (pic) from WTC-7 and also collapsed straight down into its own footprint. C-101 is trying to make a &#8216;Building Fires/Debris Did It&#8217; case by running his lips, when his silly argument can only create damage on &#8216;one side&#8217; of WTC-7 on the side facing the North Tower. :0) The problem with his theory is that WTC-7 also collapsed straight down &#8216;symmetrically&#8217; with the center of the building leading the implosion process (pic) like any typical Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org). If C-101&#8217;s theory had any merit (and it DOES NOT), the WTC-7 would have leaned over towards the one &#8216;damaged&#8217; side to perhaps fall over like a big tree in the forest. C-101 is willing to ignore all of the &#8220;Pull It&#8221; (my thread) lingo from Larry Silverstein and all of the massive explosions connected to this obvious Controlled Demolition:



It did not collapse in its own footprint.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o&feature=related[/ame]

I'm also concerned that you do not know what "symmetric" means.  An object split in two equal, identical parts is symmetric.  The fault line is nowhere near symmetric.  






As for the "pull it" comment:



> Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.
> 
> The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.
> 
> ...



http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center

If you want to know what a real controlled implosion looks like and sounds like, watch this.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&feature=related[/ame]



> In other words, a real Demolition Supervisor (#3) need only throw diesel fuel into a 47-story skyscraper, throw in a match, and the whole thing will come tumbling down into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. This guy has no clue at all . . . :0)



Actually, WTC 7 collapsed in 8-9 seconds or 13 seconds if you include the Penthouse collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ[/ame]

or 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w&NR=1[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2009)

*this man knows more than you*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9CNToaP2Ew[/ame]

*Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret*) &#8211; Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.  Also commanded the U.S. Army&#8217;s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army&#8217;s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. 

*Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. *

Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army&#8217;s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War.  I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, &#8216;The plane does not fit in that hole&#8217;. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.und 


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro. 

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2009)

*Rudy Giuliani Angry at Dutch Jury for Exonerating Osama bin Laden* 


Jurriaan Maessen

April 17, 2009 
In a FOXNews.com story on a Dutch television jury&#8217;s verdict of not guilty regarding Osama bin Laden&#8217;s alleged involvement in the attacks of September 11 2001, former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani expresses outrage over the verdict. 




 Lamenting the fact that television programs are free to air doubt, Rudy Giuliani obviously prefers that the media would do nothing but spout the official version of 911.  

As the Hollywood Reporter reported on April 9, a television jury in the Netherlands has &#8216;ruled there was no proof Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.&#8217; In the television program defense attorney Gerard Spong casts doubt on Bin Laden&#8217;s involvement in the planning of the attacks. After a short deliberation, the jury came out and acknowledged there is no real evidence linking the supposed Al-Qaida mastermind to the tragic events of September 11. Spong&#8217;s main argument in his sharp and clever plea is the extreme doubtfulness of the &#8216;admission&#8217; given by someone who vaguely resembles the bearded boogieman. 

&#8216;It&#8217;s such a bizarre and irrational ruling&#8217;, Giuliani said, &#8216;that I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;ll have any weight with anyone, other than to fuel conspiracy theories. The clear damage it does is that it gives people who want to seize on irrational theories something else to talk about.&#8217; 

By casting doubt on the Bin Laden tapes as well as pointing to the fact that 911 is not mentioned in Bin Laden&#8217;s rap sheet on the FBI&#8217;s most wanted list, Spong apparently forces the former mayor of New York further in the defensive. Giuliani tells FOXNews.com: 

&#8216;The message is a very disturbing one. It&#8217;s a very irrational decision based on all the evidence that&#8217;s been amassed by the 9/11 Commission that has concluded (Bin Laden) was the instigator and mastermind of the attacks. It&#8217;s contradictory 


Rudy Giuliani Angry at Dutch Jury for Exonerating Osama bin Laden


----------



## Terral (Apr 18, 2009)

Hi C-101:

  Let us all be absolutely sure of one thing: Those among you coming out here every damn day to run diversion for the Official Cover Story LIES are just as guilty as the Inside-job Bad Guys who murdered innocent Americans in the first place. You come out here to try and convince these readers that 100-ton Jetliners crashed where no such thing ever happened, even though you have NO EVIDENCE to support anything at all. 



C-101 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make &#8216;my&#8217; case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here
> ...


 
  This guy is supposed to be showing your photographs of a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, but instead he uses diversionary trickery by asking stupid rhetorical questions! 





 This is the Official Gov&#8217;t Evidence of THE EMPTY HOLE and this C-101 Gov&#8217;t Cover Story Crony can keep on asking his silly questions. :0)



C-101 said:


> Why else would I post eyewitness accounts?


 
  Questions, questions and more silly/stupid/ignorant questions. You have &#8216;no physical evidence&#8217; to prove a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed in the EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY Shanksville field, so you quote other people without one clue. :0) 



C-101 said:


> To demonstrate that this is a very unusual plane crash that is on whole unprecendented.
> 
> The pictures illustrate that:


 
  The pictures all show AN EMPTY HOLE:










  Say this with me really show this time: *&#8220;All of the pictures taken outside Shanksville show the same EMPTY HOLE.&#8221;*






  This is a close-up shot of THE EMPTY HOLE that shows grass growing on all the inclines. This little empty hole (heh) is where C-101 is trying to say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the ground like this (pic). This C-101  guy is trying to &#8216;divide&#8217; the reading audience by asking these stupid questions using &#8216;he-said, she-said&#8217; nonsense, because ALL of the pictures show the same little EMPTY HOLE. 






  Go ahead and ask some more stupid questions. :0) 



C-101 said:


> A) There is a massive debris field everywhere, indicating that yes, a jet liner crashed here. (Which should have been obvious in the first place.)


 
  There is no debris field in this empty Shanksville field!!!





 Look at the yellow &#8216;Do Not Cross&#8217; Ribbon stretched across the crime scene just a few feet away from THE EMPTY HOLE behind the supervisor standing there with his hands crossed behind his back. That yellow tape represents the boundary between our EMPTY HOLE and NOTHING outside the hole but more growing grass. Go through and look at each so-called crash site worker to realize that practically every back is turned to the EMPTY HOLE, because there is nothing resembling a real 100-ton crashed Jetliner anywhere in this empty field. Some of you have been DUPED by Disinformation Operatives like C-101 here coming out to this fine USMB Board to boldly claim that 100-ton Jetliners crashed in EMPTY HOLES, when nothing like that ever happened at all. The Official Cover Story Grand Delusion is perpetuated by people like C-101, because some people have &#8216;an agenda&#8217; to convince you of 911LIES with no basis in reality whatsoever. The question then concerns WHY some people are helping a rogue element inside our own U.S. Gov&#8217;t to convince people that 100-ton Jetliners crashed into empty fields. :0) 



C-101 said:


> B) The accounts of multiple witnesses are correct. The plane did not merely skid on the ground, but rather it did two things.
> 
> 1) It crashed nose down and lost a considerable amount of its airframe including an engine which went deep into the forest ahead of it.


 
  Stop playing these readers as your FOOLS with nonsense about bouncing engines, when you are missing 100 tons of evidence that any Jetliner crashed here. Because C-101 is only going to keep LYING to your faces: 






  Feast your eyes once again upon THE EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY FIELD that includes no 60-ton Titanium frame, no 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines, no massive wing sections, no 200 seats, no cargo, no indestructible landing gear, no massive tail section standing almost 50 feet tall above the tarmac, because Fight 93 NEVER CRASHED HERE (my thread). 



C-101 said:


> 2) The plane blew up before it hit the ground or after it hit the ground.


 
  Now this guy is insulting our collective intelligence by insisting that a 100-ton Jetliner &#8216;blew up&#8217; (heh) &#8220;before it hit the ground OR after it hit the ground,&#8221; because he has no evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed into this little EMPTY HOLE at all. ZERO! :0) All of the Officially &#8220;Planted&#8221; evidence can fit into the back of a single pickup truck, which confirms the absolute fact that we have been looking at Inside-Job Attacks all along. C-101&#8217;s &#8220;It Blew Up!&#8221; theory defies common sense and all the laws of physics, because he must prove how the components of a real 100-ton Jetliner vaporized into thin air without leaving one ounce of &#8216;melted&#8217; titanium, aluminum, steel or anything else. Now his missing 100-ton Jetliner simply &#8216;blew up&#8217; (this guy has no shame), but the little empty hole still has grass growing on all the inclines &#8216;and&#8217; was already in this empty field from a failed strip mining venture that went sour &#8216;before&#8217; April 20, 1994 (pic). 



C-101 said:


> Point two is supported by the picture of a mushroom cloud dissipating over the crash site. Whether it blew up before impact or afterwards is unknown but the pictures show that the plane did indeed blow up.


 
  No. The mushroom cloud was created by the Raytheon Missile that Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld shot into the center of the little empty hole.

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ"]This Lady Was There[/ame] 

 Listen to the testimony from this lady to realize that she saw &#8216;a missile&#8217; fly directly over her van and under the power lines to bank to the right and nosedive directly into the center of the little empty hole. The evidence will also show that the Pentagon case includes another Raytheon Missile that struck the Column Line 14 location at exactly 9:31:39 AM. This Susan McElwain is describing a &#8216;cylinder-shaped&#8217; object between 20 and 25 feet long that is no larger than her van and no 100-ton Jetliner that Mr. C-101 here wants you to believe simply &#8216;blew up.&#8217; :0)



C-101 said:


> Some people have speculated based on cell phone calls that the terrorists may have had a bomb on board.


 
  Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people like C-101 have speculated about a real 100-ton Jetliner blowing up too, but the eyewitness reports discredit that kind of nonsense; because people like Susan McElwain WERE THERE &#8216;and&#8217; . . . 

  [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc[/ame]

  . . . the News Reports from the Empty Field include a 20-feet by 10 to 15-feet EMPTY HOLE. We are talking about a &#8216;crater in the ground,&#8217; because the missile went BOOM. :0) 



C-101 said:


> You must be delusional or blind because there is debris EVERYWHERE and if you were actually looking for the truth it would not be hard to find more pictures of the crash site with an abundant amount of debris.


 
  This is very funny coming from a guy declaring that a real 100-ton Jetliner &#8216;blew up&#8217; to disappear into thin air. :0) 



C-101 said:


> C-101 Pic#1
> 
> C-101 Pic#2
> 
> C-101 >> Do you think I care what you consider to be appropriate or inappropriate?


 
  Questions, questions and more stupid questions! You are here to defend Senor Bushie&#8217;s Official Cover Story without regard to the absolute fact that all the pictures show AN EMPTY HOLE! The News Reporter just said that there were no pieces larger than a phonebook, but then over in the trees somewhere the Gov&#8217;t finds a few little pieces that all combined can fit into the back of one pickup truck. Note that we have no burns on these &#8216;planted&#8217; parts, but the remainder of the 100-ton Jetliner is missing. :0) 






  Again, this is the size of your missing 100-ton Jetliner in comparison to the size of your little EMPTY HOLE. And no, I do not think you care about telling &#8216;the&#8217; 911Truth about the little EMPTY HOLE, because you are here to stand condemned with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Wargame NORAD Gang, the corrupt FBI and CIA and NSA and all of their subordinate cartoon character agencies all telling the same 911LIES part of your DoD Counterintelligence/Disinformation Campaign that only makes you look like FOOLS. 



C-101 said:


> No, I care about you responding to the evidence presented and debunking it if you can.


 
  Now we are looking at more &#8216;debunking&#8217; (heh) stupidity from a guy without a case for a real 100-ton Jetliner crashing anywhere. Maybe your silly diversionary bait-and-switch mind tricks will work on some of these readers, but I can assure you with 100 percent assurance that none of your Official Cover Story NONSENSE will work on me. :0) 



C-101 said:


> Show me the evidence that this was planted.


 
  Again? Okie! (Click here).  The little hole is already in this empty field when this US Geological Survey Photograph was taken on April 20, 1994, so Senor Bushie and his Inside-job Gang decided to detonate the payload of a Raytheon Missile in the middle of the hole to simulate &#8216;wings&#8217; of a crashed Jetliner that &#8216;you say&#8217; blew up. :0) 






 There is no evidence of any Jetliner debris in or around the little empty hole, but &#8216;your&#8217; planted evidence showed up over in the trees. Okay hotshot, so explain why there is no debris &#8216;between&#8217; the empty hole and your planted evidence that is not even burned. You are still missing 100 Tons of evidence. :0) 



C-101 said:


> 1) What evidence is there that this is planted evidence?


 
  Asking the same stupid questions a thousand times is not going to make a case for a real 100-ton Jetliner crashing into this empty hole. :0) 



C-101 said:


> 2) What grass? All I see is dirt.


 
  C-101 needs to remove those rose-colored glasses that force him into seeing crashed 100-ton Jetliners where only AN EMPTY HOLE is present in the photographs. He is talking about &#8216;dirt,&#8217; because of the absence of any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) 



C-101 said:


> 3) The engine is only partially dug up.


 
  That little piece of &#8216;planted&#8217; rusty evidence (pic) has nothing to do with any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Note how the little piece of planted evidence just happens to fit inside the backhoe bucket &#8216;and&#8217; how all of the planted evidence can easily fit inside the bed of a single pickup truck &#8216;and&#8217; was found a some distance &#8216;away&#8217; from the little empty hole. Just one of the big problems facing this Gov&#8217;t Cover Story Crony is that the empty hole still has the grass growing on all the inclines (pic), which means this Official Gov&#8217;t Evidence was &#8216;planted&#8217; after the fact. 



C-101 said:


> 4) You have serious problems if you think that a engine is going to stay in one piece after a crash like that.


 
  This guy is trying to use one little piece of planted rusty engine to represent one of these babies:






  Just forget about the fact that he is missing over 5 TONS from one of the Rolls-Royce engines &#8216;and&#8217; that these Boeing 757-200 Jetliners come with a matching pair. :0) Let me guess! The remainder of the 100-ton Jetliner bounced out of this empty hole and out of this empty field to land over in the trees somewhere &#8216;and&#8217; disappear into thin air; when the eyewitness above says that she saw a little white missile-like cylinder fly directly over her van and crash to explode. No sir. All of the evidence says no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here and C-101 is simply trying to tell the Official Cover Story LIE &#8216;and&#8217; without much evidence for anything.



C-101 said:


> Also, it is important to note that 95% of the Flight 93 debris was recovered.


 
  Now this guy is just being absurd and ridiculous! These massive 100-ton Jetliners have hundreds of &#8216;time-change parts&#8217; (George Nelson Story) that include serial numbers recorded in log books that would allow for investigators to identify Flight 93 in about fifteen minutes after the cool-down period. And yet, the Gov&#8217;t has failed to turn over a single serial number from even one time-change part to prove the corrupt FBI is even in passion of one 9/11 Airliner. C-101 is obviously LYING right here in this post, because his first LIE is that Flight 93 &#8216;blew up,&#8217; but now the Gov&#8217;t has recovered 95% of the 100-Ton Jetliner that somehow rematerialized from the little empty hole. :0) 

  This C-101 guy is nothing but a Loyal Bushie JOKE. :0)

  GL,

  [FONT=&quot]Terral[/FONT]


----------



## Terral (Apr 18, 2009)

Hi C-101:



C-101 said:


> Look above. The plane blew up, disintegrated, and crash investigators reported that countless pieces of debris were present with very few big pieces.


 

  C-101 has no evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed anywhere, so his Jetliner &#8216;blew up&#8217; and &#8216;disintegrated&#8217; into thin air to leave only the little empty hole. :0) 



C-101 said:


> Thanks for posting a video that lies right away about there being no plane at the Pentagon.


 

  A DoD Jet &#8216;did&#8217; hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM (my thread), for which we have some debris (pic), but that has nothing to do with AA77 or any crashed 100-ton JETLINER. 



C-101 said:


> Do you need professional help? Let me help you.


 
  No. What I need is for C-101 to begin producing pictures of a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner that &#8216;you say&#8217; crashed . . . 






  . . . into this standing E-ring Wall! Let me take a wild guess! This C-101 guy is going to say that the 100-Ton Jetliner vaporized into thin air either &#8216;before&#8217; or &#8216;after&#8217; impact. :0) If you remember from the Fox News Clip above, then we are looking at a 20-feet diameter empty hole for the Shanksville Case &#8216;and&#8217; now we are looking at another 18-feet 3-inch empty hole at the Pentagon!






   Note the undamaged green SUV that C-101&#8217;s fantasy 100-ton Jetliner missed &#8216;and&#8217; never even broke one window on the third floor (damage schematic pic). The two second-story windows to the left of the little impact hole are also unbroken, but this C-101 guy wants you to believe that a real 100-ton Jetliner did one of these numbers (pic) through this same E-ring wall going a whopping 530 miles per hour. :0)  



C-101 said:


> If a plane: >>>>>> Hits a building: >>>>> [ ] The plane is not going to stay intact. In fact, it is going to BLOW UP.


 
  Note how C-101&#8217;s 100-ton Jetliners have a habit of blowing up and vaporizing into thin air, but only on 9/11 for these related Inside-job attacks. :0) 



C-101 said:


> Now what happens when a plane blows up?
> 
> It breaks apart into MILLIONS of pieces and those pieces often disintegrate in the instant heat of the blast and ensuing fire.


 






  Yeah. Right! I supposed all of that disintegration took place &#8216;before&#8217; your 100-ton Jetliner ever hit the Pentagon. :0) For your information, April Gallop and her son were sitting behind Column Line #6 (pic and pic = my thread), which is in the direct path of the port-side wing (pic) and she evacuated the building through the impact hole! Terry Cohen was sitting in a meeting inside one of those construction trailers just 100 feet from the impact hole. She grabbed her hardhat and ran to the impact hole within mere seconds &#8216;and&#8217; reported &#8220;Just Smoke&#8221; (News Video). There was no massive fire that you are LYING about and no &#8216;intense heat&#8217; that vaporized any 100-ton Jetliner . . . 






  . . . which we know by the fact that the black plastic remained unburned just outside the Pentagon. You see fire &#8216;now&#8217; in this picture, because the DoD A-3 Jet returned exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds &#8216;later&#8217; to crash at this very same location in a second failed attempt to bring the E-ring roof down and simulate a real Jetliner crash. 



C-101 said:


> So, no, the plane is not going to stay in one piece like some cartoon but rather burst apart.
> 
> Amazing, is it not?


 
  Listen here: If anybody here want to believe this guy&#8217;s Official Cover Story NONSENSE, then go right ahead. All this guy can do is come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Board and tell Loyal Bushie LIES that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

  GL, 

Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 18, 2009)

Listen here: If anybody here want to believe this guy&#8217;s Official Cover Story NONSENSE, then go right ahead. All this guy can do is come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Board and tell Loyal Bushie LIES that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

  GL, 

Terral[/QUOTE]

Great job Terral on taking him to school and exposing him for the true liar and dis in fo agent he is.He is obviously another dis in fo agent here  like Big D who like you said,these loyal Bush dupes have allowed to come on here and brainwash them with their lies and propaganda about 9/11.Not hard to do since they ignore facts about ANY government conspiracy where the official version has been proven to be B.S.

Not only do you have that lady in that video saying it was a missile,come on EVERYBODY knows what a jet airliner looks likebut this dis in fo agent fails to show a video that is out there in one of my 47 videos at my canada wants the truth site where a newscaster comes on and says-a bomb must have been planted in the building because there is NO EVIDENCE of a jet airliner that hit the buildings,NO EVIDENCE of any airliner debris. Where is the tail section of the plane? He cant show it.where is the nose section? He wont show the pics. where are the pics of the bodies of the victems on the airliner? this guy wont show the pics.where are the pics of the luggage on the airliner? this guy wont post the pics. How come with the most sophisticated defense system in the world,the pentagon only produced 2 pics of an alleged airliner crashing into the wall which proves NOTHING that an airliner crashed there?  

the pentagan has HUNDREDS of cameras in the building and yet he cant produce film showing the airliner coming into the pentagon hitting the complex.:just those two flimsy pis of an explosion that doesnt prove a damn thing.where is the airliner coming in? its not there. He fails to mention the pentagan has several survillience cameras in the buildings that they wont produce,he fails to mention the FBI illegally confiscated cameras from a gas station across the street under the attendents protests and at a hotel as well nearby.just like the dis in fo agent he is,he OMITS these little facts.He also conviently omits that if the airliner vaporized like they said it did,then how would they be able to identify the bodies of the people on the airliner which the government says they did,if they vaporized as well.that would be impossibe to do since the people on the airliner ALLEGEDLY vaporized also.lie after lie after lie this dis in fo agent spurs out that you loyal bush dupes have eaten up and blindly swallowed since your so much in denial.pitiful.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2009)

whats pitiful is you morons, if the pentagon had a camera that was capable of capturing an object moving over 300mph and show it clearly you guys would all claim it was fake


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> whats pitiful is you morons, if the pentagon had a camera that was capable of capturing an object moving over 300mph and show it clearly you guys would all claim it was fake



what is pitiful is you have to make up little ...what if scenarios...what is pitiful is the pentagon is reported to be one of the most secure and surveilled buildings in the country and there are at least 84 classified unreleased surveillance tapes..that for some reason the public cant view..and the one released was only because of lawsuits filed...


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 18, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > whats pitiful is you morons, if the pentagon had a camera that was capable of capturing an object moving over 300mph and show it clearly you guys would all claim it was fake
> ...


so, if they released them all, you would accept that flight 77 actually hit the pentagon?


i HIGHLY doubt it


and you claim only 84 videos
your moron buddy is claiming "hundreds"


----------



## C-101 (Apr 18, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi C-101:
> 
> Let us all be absolutely sure of one thing: Those among you coming out here every damn day to run diversion for the Official Cover Story LIES are just as guilty as the Inside-job Bad Guys who murdered innocent Americans in the first place. You come out here to try and convince these readers that 100-ton Jetliners crashed where no such thing ever happened, even though you have NO EVIDENCE to support anything at all.



I'm sensing some desperation here.



Terral said:


> This is a picture of the EMPTY HOLE that includes no crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) Thank you for helping to make &#8216;my&#8217; case that Flight 93 Never Crashed here



Well, what can you say. If you acknowledge the obvious, that would mean the end of your flight 93 conspiracy theories.

The truth hurts, I know.  But you must accept it for your sanity's sake.



> This guy is supposed to be showing your photographs of a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, but instead he uses diversionary trickery by asking stupid rhetorical questions!



I'm just wondering if you have an ounce of common sense.

You keep posting these large pictures of commercial jet liners over the hole like it's somehow supposed to stay intact upon impact.



> This is the Official Gov&#8217;t Evidence of THE EMPTY HOLE and this C-101 Gov&#8217;t Cover Story Crony can keep on asking his silly questions. :0)



Is there an echo in this thread?

Oh wait, it's just you repeating the same falsehood for the umpteenth time in this thread and many others.



> Questions, questions and more silly/stupid/ignorant questions. You have &#8216;no physical evidence&#8217; to prove a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed in the EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY Shanksville field, so you quote other people without one clue. :0)
> 
> The pictures all show AN EMPTY HOLE:
> 
> ...





Your last picture even has arrows pointing to debris and you still refuse to see it.



> Look at the yellow &#8216;Do Not Cross&#8217; Ribbon stretched across the crime scene just a few feet away from THE EMPTY HOLE behind the supervisor standing there with his hands crossed behind his back. That yellow tape represents the boundary between our EMPTY HOLE and NOTHING outside the hole but more growing grass. Go through and look at each so-called crash site worker to realize that practically every back is turned to the EMPTY HOLE, because there is nothing resembling a real 100-ton crashed Jetliner anywhere in this empty field. Some of you have been DUPED by Disinformation Operatives like C-101 here coming out to this fine USMB Board to boldly claim that 100-ton Jetliners crashed in EMPTY HOLES, when nothing like that ever happened at all. The Official Cover Story Grand Delusion is perpetuated by people like C-101, because some people have &#8216;an agenda&#8217; to convince you of 911LIES with no basis in reality whatsoever. The question then concerns WHY some people are helping a rogue element inside our own U.S. Gov&#8217;t to convince people that 100-ton Jetliners crashed into empty fields. :0)



Well, I must admit that you're right.

I work for the CIA and I was employed shortly after 9/11 as a disinformation agent.

You got me.

. . .



> Stop playing these readers as your FOOLS with nonsense about bouncing engines, when you are missing 100 tons of evidence that any Jetliner crashed here. Because C-101 is only going to keep LYING to your faces:
> 
> Feast your eyes once again upon THE EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY FIELD that includes no 60-ton Titanium frame, no 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines, no massive wing sections, no 200 seats, no cargo, no indestructible landing gear, no massive tail section standing almost 50 feet tall above the tarmac, because Fight 93 NEVER CRASHED HERE



And on that note, back to the pictures.



























But of course as a CIA operative I know that this is all planted evidence designed to fool you.



> Now this guy is insulting our collective intelligence by insisting that a 100-ton Jetliner &#8216;blew up&#8217; (heh) &#8220;before it hit the ground OR after it hit the ground,&#8221; because he has no evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed into this little EMPTY HOLE at all. ZERO! :0) All of the Officially &#8220;Planted&#8221; evidence can fit into the back of a single pickup truck, which confirms the absolute fact that we have been looking at Inside-Job Attacks all along. C-101&#8217;s &#8220;It Blew Up!&#8221; theory defies common sense and all the laws of physics, because he must prove how the components of a real 100-ton Jetliner vaporized into thin air without leaving one ounce of &#8216;melted&#8217; titanium, aluminum, steel or anything else. Now his missing 100-ton Jetliner simply &#8216;blew up&#8217; (this guy has no shame), but the little empty hole still has grass growing on all the inclines &#8216;and&#8217; was already in this empty field from a failed strip mining venture that went sour &#8216;before&#8217; April 20, 1994



Uh, no.

All three planes at the WTC and Pentagon blew up.  There are several pictures and video of these explosions.

Jet fuel is very voliatile and it would be of no surprise that the plane blew up, seeing how the plane is believed to have been flying errantly upside down into the field at an extreme angle.

There is also witness testimony for this.



> Eric Peterson of Lambertsville was working with a friend in his auto shop this morning. They heard a plane and looked up and saw a large aircraft close to the ground. "I actually thought it was going to hit a house here in town," said Peterson. It blew out windows of a nearby farmhouse when it crashed. As it went over started going end over end, Peterson said, and then dropped below a tree line and exploded. Peterson saw a flash and then a mushroom cloud of smoke. The plane went down on a strip mine field. Peterson and his friend rushed to the field and looked for bodies, but couldn't find any. They called out, but heard nothing. There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area, burning, said Peterson. He said he didn't see any debris longer than a couple of feet long.[8]
> 
> Eric Peterson of Lambertsville looked up when he heard the plane. "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets," Peterson said. "You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." Peterson called 9-1-1 and ran to the crash site but found only burning jet parts, pieces of clothing, and seat cushions.



United Airlines Flight 93 - Witnesses -Debunk 9/11 Myths

But of course, Mr. Peterson and every other "eyewittness" was planted by the government in preparation for 9/11 according to what the CIA told me.



> No. The mushroom cloud was created by the Raytheon Missile that Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld shot into the center of the little empty hole.



So where did this missile launch from?

What was its flight path?

Was it a ACM missile or Tomahawk cruise missile?

How do you know the manufacturer is Raytheon?

What evidence is there that any government official ordered a missile strike?

Does a missile of this type create a mushroom cloud?

Is it so loud and powerful that it blows out of the windows of nearby buildings?

Does this missile scorch a forested area in a triangular plane shape?



> Listen to the testimony from this lady to realize that she saw &#8216;a missile&#8217; fly directly over her van and under the power lines to bank to the right and nosedive directly into the center of the little empty hole. The evidence will also show that the Pentagon case includes another Raytheon Missile that struck the Column Line 14 location at exactly 9:31:39 AM. This Susan McElwain is describing a &#8216;cylinder-shaped&#8217; object between 20 and 25 feet long that is no larger than her van and no 100-ton Jetliner that Mr. C-101 here wants you to believe simply &#8216;blew up.&#8217; :0)



The entire video she was talking about a triangular plane and then those guys were egging her on to say "missile" which is contrary to her previous testimony.

"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."

~Susan McElwain~

Last time I checked, a missile does not have two rear engines but the confirmed Dassault 20 falcon did.

She said that she "ducked down" when she wittnessed this and she also had a hard time explaining her experience at one point in the video; stopping mid sentence and starting her story over about three times.

Go to Raytheon's wikipedia page.  They got links to all of their missile models both old, new, and experimental.

But of course, the CIA told me that they had a secret missile that looked like a plane to launch just for 9/11.



> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people like C-101 have speculated about a real 100-ton Jetliner blowing up too, but the eyewitness reports discredit that kind of nonsense; because people like Susan McElwain WERE THERE &#8216;and&#8217; . . .
> 
> . . . the News Reports from the Empty Field include a 20-feet by 10 to 15-feet EMPTY HOLE. We are talking about a &#8216;crater in the ground,&#8217; because the missile went BOOM. :0)



Edit:  "because the plane went BOOM."



> This is very funny coming from a guy declaring that a real 100-ton Jetliner &#8216;blew up&#8217; to disappear into thin air. :0)



This is very funny from a guy who denies all eyewittness accounts, is blind to plane debris, and thinks that a plane will mysteriously crash unharmed into the ground.



> Questions, questions and more stupid questions! You are here to defend Senor Bushie&#8217;s Official Cover Story without regard to the absolute fact that all the pictures show AN EMPTY HOLE! The News Reporter just said that there were no pieces larger than a phonebook, but then over in the trees somewhere the Gov&#8217;t finds a few little pieces that all combined can fit into the back of one pickup truck. Note that we have no burns on these &#8216;planted&#8217; parts, but the remainder of the 100-ton Jetliner is missing. :0)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Terral said:


> Hi C-101:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Someone has entirely too much time on their hands.

I've already wasted a good two hours of my life in responding to this post, so I'll just ignore your second follow up post.


----------



## Terral (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi C-101



C-101 said:


> I'm sensing some desperation here.


 
  That sounds funny from a guy trying to prove that this empty hole . . . 






  . . . equals *a crashed 100-ton Jetliner *eusa_liar. :0) 



C-101 said:


> Well, what can you say. If you acknowledge the obvious, that would mean the end of your flight 93 conspiracy theories.
> 
> The truth hurts, I know. But you must accept it for your sanity's sake.


 
  Let&#8217;s get this straight right right now: C-101 is out here advocating the *Official Cover Story* that *19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals* (pic) pulled off these 9/11 attacks and that this empty hole . . .





  . . . equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner.  I am the guy pointing to the EMPTY HOLE . . . 






. . . and you are the guy with the *Official Cover Story Conspiracy Theory that a 100-ton Jetliner crashed here* cuckoo.



C-101 said:


> Oh wait, it's just you repeating the same falsehood for the umpteenth time in this thread and many others.


 
  No sir. All of the Shanksville photographs show the SAME EMPTY HOLE . . . 






. . . where* &#8216;your&#8217; Conspiracy Theory* says a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed. Say this with me again, *&#8220;All of the pictures show the same EMPTY HOLE.&#8221;* You can keep claiming that a real 100-ton Jetliner vanished into this little hole if that makes C-101 all warm and fuzzy inside, but we are still looking at pictures of AN EMPTY HOLE . . . 

*Click Here* (C-101 does this = what a joke!)

 . . . that was already in this empty field *'before' April 20, 1994*. :0) 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2009)

hey terral, where is the jet in this crash site?


----------



## C-101 (Apr 19, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi C-101
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If all you're going to do is copy and paste the same stuff over and over and over again, then just forget it.

I think I have made a point here that any sane, rational person can see.  

9/11 conspiracy theorists are not in search of the truth or even answers.

Rather, they take a tragedy such as 9/11 and attempt to conform it to their extreme paranoia of anything remotely resembling authority.

Therefore, they become oblivious to facts no matter how often they destroy their arguments.

Consequently, it progresses into a state of delusion; practically a separation from reality.

And there really is no sense that can be driven into these people.

They have their worldview and anything that contradicts that worldview cannot be accepted by them.

I will now take DiveCon's advice and conclude that debating Terral is nothing more than a waste of time.

Good day.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 19, 2009)

C-101 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi C-101
> ...


yup, i told ya
Eots, at times will debate an issue, but then he falls back into the same pattern


----------



## Terral (Apr 20, 2009)

Hi C-101:



C-101 said:


> If all you're going to do is copy and paste the same stuff over and over and over again, then just forget it.


 
  Telling &#8216;the&#8217; 911Truth means saying the same thing over and over and over again, when &#8216;all&#8217; of the Official Photographs show the SAME EMPTY HOLE.






  C-101 keeps saying that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into this empty hole, when all we are really looking at is AN . . . EMPTY . . . HOLE. Period. I cannot help the fact that C-101 wants to sell Loyal Bushie LIES. :0) 



C-101 said:


> I think I have made a point here that any sane, rational person can see.


 
  No. You have made the same point of delusional people beyond the reach of any 911Truth lifeline that this empty hole . . . 






  . . .  equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner. I am the guy telling &#8216;the&#8217; 911Truth that we have been looking at the same EMPTY HOLE from day one. If you want to come out here and pretend that these pictures show anything but . . . 






  . . . AN EMPTY HOLE, then mo-powa-2-ya. :0) 



C-101 said:


> 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not in search of the truth or even answers.


 
  C-101 is pushing the Official Cover Story Conspiracy Theory that a band of people like this . . .






  . . . pulled off these related 9/11 Inside-Job Attacks, so never pretend to be selling anything but YOUR OWN Conspiracy Theory. Then send more of your Official Cover Story CRAP in my direction in the day that you really want to see more pictures of . . . 






  . . . the EMPTY HOLE where &#8216;you&#8217; want us to believe a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed. :0)



C-101 said:


> Rather, they take a tragedy such as 9/11 and attempt to conform it to their extreme paranoia of anything remotely resembling authority.


 
  In other words, I am supposed to be conformed into C-101&#8217;s IDIOT, because somehow my ability to recognize . . .  






  . . . AN EMPTY HOLE in the ground is somehow impaired. :0)



C-101 said:


> Therefore, they become oblivious to facts no matter how often they destroy their arguments.


 
  Destroy my arguments? :0) Get Real Dude! You are telling the same LIES as Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who murdered innocent Americans on 9/11 &#8216;and&#8217; now hide behind LIES told by Cover Story Artists LIKE YOU. 

*Click Here* (C-101 does this = what a joke!) 

  I have shown you the same picture of the EMPTY HOLE taken on *April 20, 1994*, but C-101 has no reply against the evidence at all. ZERO. Run away from 'the' 911Truth and never stop running there Forrest. :0) Now the funny part (this guy is a JOKE) is that C-101 has made himself worthy of the SAME FATE facing these murderers of innocent Americans (Rev. 21:8), because the people running diversion for the Cover Story LIARS are just as guilty as those doing the original deeds. 



C-101 said:


> Consequently, it progresses into a state of delusion; practically a separation from reality.


 





Here is another picture of the EMPTY HOLE that somebody has tried to pass off as a crashed 100-ton Jetliner by adding a few numbers with arrows to help support &#8216;their&#8217; version of the Official Cover Story LIE. C-101 says this picture shows a crashed 100-ton Jetliner &#8216;and&#8217; I will continue to say to the end of time itself that everyone is looking at the picture of AN EMPTY HOLE. Now go back up to Post #88 to realize that C-101 is just &#8216;talking&#8217; cuckoo and once again has offered up NO EVIDENCE to support any of his silly nonsense at all. C-101 is the one blinded by Loyal Bushie LIES and the one &#8216;deluded&#8217; into believing AN EMPTY HOLE equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Then he has the gall to come back out here to this fine USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum to pretend that I am the one in some state of delusion. :0) 



C-101 said:


> And there really is no sense that can be driven into these people.


 
  Some people (like me) are immune to your Loyal Bushie Bull Crap and will always see the same empty hole . . . 

Click here << Do it! :0) 

  . . . that we see in all of the Shanksville Photographs. You see, we even have video clips of *the same EMPTY HOLE* proving beyond all doubt that NO 100-ton Jetliner crashed here (my thread). Period. BTW, where can we click on *C-101's "Flight 93 Topic"* where 'he' proves that this EMPTY HOLE equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner? :0) 



C-101 said:


> They have their worldview and anything that contradicts that worldview cannot be accepted by them.


 
  Just keep moving your lips lol and just maybe one of these readers will believe *&#8220;YOUR&#8221; stupid Cover Story* version of what really happened in this empty Shanksville field. 



C-101 said:


> I will now take DiveCon's advice and conclude that debating Terral is nothing more than a waste of time.
> 
> Good day.


 
  Please come back and try to sell Loyal Bushie LIES again, whenever you want to see more pictures of the EMPTY HOLE where &#8216;you&#8217; want everyone to believe a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed. Those among you who cannot tell the difference between a little bitty EMPTY HOLE . . .














  . . . and a real crashed Jetliner need to have those eyes checked, before you come out here again to sell Loyal Bushie/Obama LIES. 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

sorry terral, no one is going to waste their time trying debunk your crap point by point
you cant even debate, you just keep throwing the same shit uop time after time even though it had been completely and thoroughly debunked numerous times
i'm still waiting for you to tell me where the plane went in the crash photo i posted


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

a legend in iown mind.....poor little retarded divecon


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> a legend in iown mind.....poor little retarded divecon


wow, looking in that mirror again


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > whats pitiful is you morons, if the pentagon had a camera that was capable of capturing an object moving over 300mph and show it clearly you guys would all claim it was fake
> ...



Its also pitiful that your so much afraid of the truth about government conspiracys divecon that you  defend the shortcomings of them no matter how many times they have been proven to be a bunch of B.S.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


except they HAVENT been proven so
you morons claim it but have never proven it


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi C-101
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

. . . and you are the guy with the *Official Cover Story Conspiracy Theory that a 100-ton Jetliner crashed here* cuckoo.



C-101 said:


> Oh wait, it's just you repeating the same falsehood for the umpteenth time in this thread and many others.


 
  ]what a joke![/URL])

this guy sure is a joke.We ask him to produce the photos of the aircraft of the tail section,the wings,the nose  of it like you did when an airliner crashes.He CANT produce them.He CANT produce the footage with all those hundreds of pentagan cameras in the area of the airliner coming in.He ignores what the lady witness said in her video and he ignores the fact that a newscaster was on hand saying-there is NO EVIDENCE that an airliner crashed here.How pathetic this dis in fo agent is.and yet here he is saying Im sensing some desperation here when he cant prove that a 100 ton airliner crashed into that empty hole.this guy kills me.you dis in fo agents are so greedy for the money they will pay you to churn out such B.S. you dont realise how ludicrous you sound.


----------



## Terral (Apr 20, 2009)

Hi Dive:



DiveCon said:


> sorry terral, no one is going to waste their time trying debunk your crap point by point



Dive has no pictures of Flight 93 or Flight 77 crashed anywhere and he very well knows it. I expect no kind of reasonable reply from Loyal Bushie/Obama LIARS, because you have no case for anything. I show you the pictures of the EMPTY HOLE . . . 






. . . and that ends the argument. :0)



DiveCon said:


> you cant even debate, you just keep throwing the same shit uop time after time even though it had been completely and thoroughly debunked numerous times



Dive is the guy coming to these 911Truth debates like this (pic) without an argument to support the Official Cover Story or anything else. Here is what 'you' say . . . 






. . . represents a crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0) 



DiveCon said:


> i'm still waiting for you to tell me where the plane went in the crash photo i posted



The Dive Conman runs around this place pretending that this . . . 






. . . equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner cuckoo; so with that kind of disability, then we should not expect much more from the DiveCon man. I see unburned grass in the empty hole and some smoke, but nothing even remotely similar to any crashed 100-ton Jetliner . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s"]The Flight 93 FRAUD[/ame]

. . . and yet, you guys believe the Official Cover Story LIES 'and' sell that Loyal Bushie/Obama CRAP to these readers every day. Flight 93 never answers the pilots or the control tower, because the Jetliner landed safely at Cleveland Airport, according to the testimony of *Mayor Michael R. White* (story). 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lObZaph7sQY&feature=response_watch"]This Guy Knows FAR More Than The DiveCon Man[/ame]

*"Where is the JET, people?" *. . . Never Happened . . . Wake The Hell Up Already! Six USMB registered members say they believe the Official Cover Story LIE 'and' they are coming here every damned day to try and sell you their absolute Loyal Bushie/Obama FBI/CIA/DoD Stupidity . . . 

GL,

Terral


----------



## DamnYankee (Apr 20, 2009)

*Poll Options*
Do you support The Official 9/11 Gov't *Cover* Stories?
Yes. I believe the Gov't explanations for the 9/11 attacks.
No. The evidence does not match the Gov't explanations.


Nothing like preparing a poll with loaded questions in order to obtain skewed results.


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

nothing like having a investigation that completely omits building 7...ignores wittness testimony..provides false information to the commission..keeps evidence like the  84 pentagon videos classified.  has a smaller budget than the investigation of clinton's blow job  .etc..etc


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> nothing like having a investigation that completely omits building 7...ignores wittness testimony..provides false information to the commission..keeps evidence like the  84 pentagon videos classified.  has a smaller budget than the investigation of clinton's blow job  .etc..etc


and if they released those 84 pentagon videos it wouldnt change a thing


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Dive:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


stop posting the same fucking pictures and claiming lies with them when you are too fucking stupid to understand the ground conditions and why you dont see a complete undamaged 757 in that hole
you have been show NUMOROUS photos of the debris of the plane having been DUG out of the ground at that site and numorous other photos of the debris that had been scattered by the explosion of the crash

you also ignored the photo of the valujet crash in 1992 that i posted, where is the plane in THAT crash?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> hey terral, where is the jet in this crash site?


terral, here is a REAL jet crash site
answer this one


----------



## Terral (Apr 20, 2009)

Hi Biz:



ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> *Poll Options*
> Do you support The Official 9/11 Gov't *Cover* Stories?
> Yes. I believe the Gov't explanations for the 9/11 attacks.
> No. The evidence does not match the Gov't explanations.
> ...



AllBiz either believes the Gov't explanations for the 9/11 attacks (Yes), OR the evidence simply does NOT match the Gov't explanations (No). The OP Poll is based upon the fact that some people believe the Official Cover Story LIES for some reason having NOTHING whatsoever to do with 'the evidence,' which means you might fit into that category. Let's try a simple demonstration that your pal C-101 could not answer honestly:






Okay, hotshot, I see an EMPTY HOLE, but what does AllBiz see? :0) You can vote "Yes" that you believe the Loyal Bushie/Obama LIE that we are looking at the picture of a crashed 100-ton Jetliner (Yes), OR you can vote "No" that the 'evidence' does not match the Official Cover Story. The reason that I insist that we are looking at an "Official Cover Story LIE," is because of the 'evidence' of . . . 






. . . THE EMPTY HOLE. Try clicking here (Video Clip) from my thread (here) to see the short video clip 'before' actually making up your mind. But wait! Be sure to click here (US Geological Survey pic) to see the 'evidence' that the little empty hole was created LONG before the 9/11 attacks. I am making the links to the 'evidence' very LARGE so you can be sure to click and view the 'evidence' for yourself. :0) 

BTW, this Poll thread was started to answer the Retired Guy's slanted Poll thread here. Now compare the evidentiary support in my OP versus what you see in the Retired Guy's OP. :0) 

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

*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 

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


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> nothing like having a investigation that completely omits building 7...ignores wittness testimony..provides false information to the commission..keeps evidence like the  84 pentagon videos classified.  has a smaller budget than the investigation of clinton's blow job  .etc..etc


except it didnt completely omit it


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> nothing like having a investigation that completely omits building 7...ignores wittness testimony..provides false information to the commission..keeps evidence like the  84 pentagon videos classified.  has a smaller budget than the investigation of clinton's blow job  .etc..etc



and dont forget illegally destroys evidence.too bad dive wasnt there to try and pick up some debris in 86 when the space shuttle travesty occured.He would have been making his next phone call from a jail cell and been in prison for years.wish that had happened.He is just as bad a person living in denial as the bush administration and the other politicians are for pulling this off


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > nothing like having a investigation that completely omits building 7...ignores wittness testimony..provides false information to the commission..keeps evidence like the  84 pentagon videos classified.  has a smaller budget than the investigation of clinton's blow job  .etc..etc
> ...



really ....so why dont they release them ..????????????....what is your diveconspiracy  to explain away this ?????


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


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


they dont give a shit about you troofers

honestly, i wish they would release ALL of them
but it wont change anything
you morons will STILL claim it was an inside job and the 95% of the rest of the population will still think you guys are fucking idiots


----------



## Terral (Apr 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > hey terral, where is the jet in this crash site?
> ...



Hey, the DiveCon Man actually posted a picture of something! Miracles do happen and the DiveCon Man must be very proud of himself. You are posting a picture of the crash location of *ValuJet Flight 592* (Wiki) that developed a fire in the cargo hold from improperly stored oxygen canisters that severed the control cables causing the crash in swampy terrain near Miami, Florida on *May 11, 1996* (link).






This is the picture of one engine recovered from the crash site.






This is a picture of the fuselage recovered from the crash site.










These are just two pictures of hanger bays filled with Jetliner debris that was recovered from the crash site. However, here is the clincher: You are looking at Jetliner debris from a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 that weighs *about 50 tons* (specs), or less than half the size of a *Boeing 757-200* (specs) that somehow vanished into the little empty Shanksville hole. BTW, again, the little Shanksville hole was already cut into the empty field even *'before'* (April 20, *1994* pic) ValuJet 592 crashed near Miami back in 1996. :0)  

Try to show us pictures of hangers filled with Jetliner debris from your fantasy 100-ton Jetliner outside Shanksville . . . and, No, I am '*not*' holding my breath . . . :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

wow thats a real logical intelligent answer..its because they don't give a shit about troofers ? and people think we are crazy....thats your pathetic answer ?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> wow thats a real logical intelligent answer..its because they don't give a shit about troofers ? and people think we are crazy....thats your pathetic answer ?


you asked, i answered
more than likely those videos don't show a damn thing
nothing more than what they have already released
thus it would not answer your questions
that is my hypothesis


----------



## DamnYankee (Apr 20, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Biz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry.... The answers you've provided pre-suppose a Gov't COVER Story, otherwise your poll question would not have included the adjective.

BTW, I haven't reviewed the results of your little poll.... I doubt that Pew or Gallup would approve the phrasing though....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2009)

Terral[/QUOTE]
If all you're going to do is copy and paste the same stuff over and over and over again, then just forget it.

He has to paste it over and over again cause you ignore it and are too arrogant to admit you have been proven wrong.
I think I have made a point here that any sane, rational person can see.  

yeah a deluded dis in fo agent like yourself or Big D maybe.LOL

9/11 conspiracy theorists are not in search of the truth or even answers.

yeah you 9/11 conspiracy theorists-the Bush dupes are NOT in search of the truth.

Rather, they take a tragedy such as 9/11 and attempt to conform it to their extreme paranoia of anything remotely resembling authority.

 Lame ass come back since you havent debunked anything we have asked you to.just because you cant debunk it doesnt mean we are paranoid.

Therefore, they become oblivious to facts no matter how often they destroy their arguments. 

you need to look in the mirror on this comment.

Consequently, it progresses into a state of delusion; practically a separation from reality.

yeah you ARE delusional,us truth seekers all know that.

And there really is no sense that can be driven into these people.

yeah you 1 Bush dupes have no sense,we all know that.

They have their worldview and anything that contradicts that worldview cannot be accepted by them. 

yeah we know you do.you paid dis in fo agent.

I will now take DiveCon's advice and conclude that debating Terral is nothing more than a waste of time. 

yeah listen to your Bush dupe who has been  brainwashed because it IS a waste of time debating with you Bush dupes. good day.

Good day.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Terral (Apr 20, 2009)

Hi AllBiz:



ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Sorry.... The answers you've provided pre-suppose a Gov't COVER Story, otherwise your poll question would not have included the adjective.














GL,

Terral


----------



## Terral (Apr 20, 2009)

Hi Eots:



eots said:


> wow thats a real logical intelligent answer..its because they don't give a shit about troofers ? and people think we are crazy....thats your pathetic answer ?



All these Loyal Bushie Liars/DUPES have is one pathetic answer after another and the sad story remains the same. Here is a picture of the North Tower . . . 






. . . where you can see a big fat impact hole with wingtips spanning end to end and the whole 9 yards.






This is a picture of the Pentagon where these cartoon characters want to say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour. :0) 






Then the Loyal Bushie LIARS whine and cry about posting the same pictures over and over again, that prove beyond all doubt that THEY ARE LYING. This is not rocket science 'and' the evidence simply does NOT even begin to match the Official 'Cover Story.' Period. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA"]These Experts All Agree![/ame]

If the Bush/Obama Administrations are going to lie directly into my face, at least have the wherewithal to come up with something that begins to match THE EVIDENCE. This is also not a case of the Govt telling little white lies about one aspect of these 9/11 Inside-Job Attacks, because NONE of the evidence matches the Official Cover Stories!

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"][/ame][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&NR=1"]WTC-7 CD Incriminating Evidence[/ame]

  Who in their right mind *before 9/11* would even try to tell the Loyal Bushie/Obama LIE that this represents the video clip of a 47-story skyscraper burning to the ground? Nobody! And yet, We have many registered members willing to LIE to these readers and to themselves with claims that *they believe the Govt explanation* for each of these 9/11 cases.  And, guess what? . . . 






  . . . Thats right! The little empty Shanksville hole is still empty. Here is the deal for all of the Loyal Bushie LIARS/DUPES: 

These people run like Forrest Gump to this USMB Conspiracies Forum every day to convince everyone that *no conspiracy exists,* because these United States Of America are being primed for* utter destruction* and that is exactly what We The People deserve. That is the reason that so few of these registered members are willing to stand with 9/11 inside job, eots, Peejay, sylverfoxx and Terral to simply tell *the 911Truth told by all the evidence.* This is perfect proof that I should refrain from standing before the throne of God making intercession for a bunch of Loyal Bushie LIARS that are obviously in the majority and numbered among the very *many* (Matt. 7:13-14). Very well then. From this day forward *I shall plead to the Lord God NO MORE *for the preservation of this once-great country, because *what is coming *on the horizon like a freight train is what the majority here really deserves. 

  GL because you need it,

  Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

terral, i'm really currious, do you live anywhere near New ENgland?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2009)

something else that I just thought of that  cracks me up about these loyal Bush dupes Terral and how disinformation agents like C-101 make themselves look like fools is the government says the reason there was no plane wreakage at the pentagan is that it was vaporized.you got to be on drugs to fall for THAT explanation.LOL well if the plane was vaporized,funny how all that PLANTED evidence c-101 keeps showing all of a sudden appeared isnt it? They cant even get their stories straight with their lies and coverups,but these moron Bush dupes blindly swallow it.pathetic isnt it? LOL.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> something else that I just thought of that  cracks me up about these loyal Bush dupes Terral and how disinformation agents like C-101 make themselves look like fools is the government says the reason there was no plane wreakage at the pentagan is that it was vaporized.you got to be on drugs to fall for THAT explanation.LOL well if the plane was vaporized,funny how all that PLANTED evidence c-101 keeps showing all of a sudden appeared isnt it? They cant even get their stories straight with their lies and coverups,but these moron Bush dupes blindly swallow it.pathetic isnt it? LOL.


ah, so all that plane debris seen around the pentagon was planted


----------



## C-101 (Apr 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> something else that I just thought of that  cracks me up about these loyal Bush dupes Terral and how disinformation agents like C-101 make themselves look like fools is the government says the reason there was no plane wreakage at the pentagan is that it was vaporized.you got to be on drugs to fall for THAT explanation.LOL well if the plane was vaporized,funny how all that PLANTED evidence c-101 keeps showing all of a sudden appeared isnt it? They cant even get their stories straight with their lies and coverups,but these moron Bush dupes blindly swallow it.pathetic isnt it? LOL.


No, this is not Star Trek where you can vaporize people or objects into molecules.

The word I used was disintegrate, which means to decompose or break down into small fragments/components.  To lose cohesion to put it literally.

Huge difference, Trekkie.


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > something else that I just thought of that  cracks me up about these loyal Bush dupes Terral and how disinformation agents like C-101 make themselves look like fools is the government says the reason there was no plane wreakage at the pentagan is that it was vaporized.you got to be on drugs to fall for THAT explanation.LOL well if the plane was vaporized,funny how all that PLANTED evidence c-101 keeps showing all of a sudden appeared isnt it? They cant even get their stories straight with their lies and coverups,but these moron Bush dupes blindly swallow it.pathetic isnt it? LOL.
> ...



why after all these years don't they release the tapes..it would be that easy the answer the question ..why don't they have a investigation where all pentagon whiteness give sworn testomony under oath with cross examination like they would in any other criminal investigation ???? instead of just disseminating the  the unworn testomony that fits the official version...???...somethings not right


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


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


as i said before, what if those 84 tapes have NOTHING significant on them
and the two we have seen are the only ones with even a bit of info


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 20, 2009)

C-101 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > something else that I just thought of that  cracks me up about these loyal Bush dupes Terral and how disinformation agents like C-101 make themselves look like fools is the government says the reason there was no plane wreakage at the pentagan is that it was vaporized.you got to be on drugs to fall for THAT explanation.LOL well if the plane was vaporized,funny how all that PLANTED evidence c-101 keeps showing all of a sudden appeared isnt it? They cant even get their stories straight with their lies and coverups,but these moron Bush dupes blindly swallow it.pathetic isnt it? LOL.
> ...



thanks for showing how your the clueless dis in fo agent you are and as always,have no credibility in what you say.Your ADMITTING the government is a bunch of liars.The reason you are is because I never said that YOU said they vaporized.the official version by the GOVERNMENT is that the plane and everything vaporized.THEY said that in their report that the plane that hit the pentagon vaporized dis in fo agent.Your bosses need to fire you cause BIG D as foolish as his posts are,even that dork  is a better dis in fo agent than you are.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> C-101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


really???
can you link to an official source that claims the plane vaporized?
and cite the page/link/paragraph that actually says it


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



how do you know that ?..and if thats the case.. why are they classified ? ?...you make no sense
and the pentagon was reported to be one of the most secure and surveiled buildings in America... before 9/11..


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


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


again, being "secured and surveiled" does not mean they had HDTV video cameras covering the entire building


----------



## C-101 (Apr 20, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> C-101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Not sure what report this is.

I actually have not read much of the government reports.


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2aM6j1Yy60[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

Dive - coned... I don't expect you to have the attention span to or intelligence to comprehend any of this or its significance its a bit much for your
 3o sec sound bite mentality




*Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense*. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.  Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001). 
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: 
*
 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.  The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... *

*There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn*, where I stood only minutes after the impact.  *Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris*, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible *evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile*". ... 

*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.  

*The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... *
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day." 

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



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrgvNrJnEJE[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


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


think you could give a little hint of what i am supposed to see here?
since 99.9% of the time your posted videos are nonsense


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

*THE STAND DOWN ORDER*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfoBmO0YlfQ[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> *THE STAND DOWN ORDER*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfoBmO0YlfQ


except he was wrong
there was NO stand down order


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE&feature=related


there was NO stand down order


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2009)

ya a the military witnesses and experts are wrong..but the strangers and news reporter lying pieces of shit ..you believe... your hopelessly in denial

DIVECON  finds this man more credible than air force military eyewitnesses 




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk[/ame]

this man reeks with deceit.....


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 20, 2009)

eots said:


> ya a the military witnesses and experts are wrong..but the strangers and news reporter lying pieces of shit ..you believe... your hopelessly in denial
> 
> DIVECON finds this man more credible than air force military eyewitnesses
> 
> ...


if he was there, and he was, then he has more ability to witness what he saw
the people you use WERENT THERE


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

what part of military eyewitness don't you understand ???


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

eots said:


> ya a the military witnesses and experts are wrong..but the strangers and news reporter lying pieces of shit ..you believe... your hopelessly in denial
> 
> DIVECON  finds this man more credible than air force military eyewitnesses
> 
> ...



Humor Me ~ Joking sometimes feels necessary to the subject of inquisition. Lightening up the tense atmosphere with the *clever one-liners *could be their way of taking emphasis off of a truly serious subject. No harm will come, if you so choose to allow them their *amateur comedy routine*. It may even *alleviate the intense pressure of the moment*. Two rational minds could even possibly emerge, shedding new light and making it easier to move on.

Telling Eyes ~ The eyes are mirrors and reflect truth or fabrication. *When one is looking up and to the right,* they are accessing the right side of their brain. The part that holds creativity. They are undoubtedly looking for a little help in coming up with the *perfect alibi*. When one is looking to the left or down, they are sincerely retrieving their memory for the most honest answer. The main point that should be taking is that it's very *difficult for the average liar to hold eye contact. They have an intense fear of their eyes squealing on them*
How to Spot a Liar


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 21, 2009)

I am suddenly wondering ... do the conspiracy nuts expect a plan crash to look like a meteor strike?


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

*honest men* and *a liar* can you spot the diffrence ??



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> I am suddenly wondering ... do the conspiracy nuts expect a plan crash to look like a meteor strike?



I'm just wondering why someone who has next to no knowledge on the subject has the nerve to offer such opinions..so fluff head do you think the firemen are liars ?


----------



## Terral (Apr 21, 2009)

Hi DiveCon Man:



DiveCon said:


> can you link to an official source that claims the plane vaporized? and cite the page/link/paragraph that actually says it



The Official Source is the "Brief Of Accident" Report "Adopted 03/07/2006" by the "*National Transportation Safety Board*" (here) saying that the "Boeing / 757-200" Aircraft was Officially "*Destroyed*." This bogus NTSB Accident Report coincides with the fake *NTSB Flight Data Recorder* evidence (here) that places their bogus AA77 'outside' Pentagon airspace at "*0932*" (9:32 AM) when the *FAA Timeline* (link) says the *"aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon." *

All of the evidence indicates that Jim Ritter (NTSB official) is a LIAR, because his sworn testimony says AA77 was 'outside' Pentagon airspace when the Pentagon was struck at 9:32 AM. The entire National Transportation Safety Board staff is filled with Loyal Bushie LIARS, as if any 100-ton Jetliner can simply be 'destroyed' to excuse the fact that the Gov't is simply NOT in possession of ANY of these 9/11 Jetliners! This is the very place where we obtain expert military testimony from people like Colonel George Nelson a specialist in the military aircraft maintenance department:

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001 



> Colonel George Nelson:
> 
> *American Airlines Flight 77*
> 
> ...


  In short: The Gov&#8217;t has been LYING from the very beginning on every level from the out-of-control FBI/CIA/NSA, the Department of Defense, the Justice Department, the wargame-playing NORAD generals, the Joint-chiefs, the out-of-control Congress, Dick Cheney, Karl (the mastermind) Rove hiding with Senor Bushie in plain sight reading pet goat stories with elementary school children here in sunny Florida. 

  [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60[/ame]

  All of these Gov&#8217;t Officials are LYING and they have been LYING from the very beginning &#8216;and&#8217; they are going to continue LYING straight to your face to the very end. Period. 

  [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU&NR=1[/ame]

The six USMB cartoon characters agreeing to conspire together 'and' profess believing *the Official Cover Stories LIES* are standing with '*all liars*' (Rev. 21:8) and have earned the same exact fate . . . so help me God . . . 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

eots said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I am suddenly wondering ... do the conspiracy nuts expect a plan crash to look like a meteor strike?
> ...



since that Bush dupe is  obviously in denial,I guess he does.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE&feature=related



Dive is so much in denial he never watches this video of Minetta saying Cheney gave a stand down order not to shoot down the missile.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi DiveCon Man:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hey, you fail again, not one of those said it "vaporized"


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


you are such a fucking moron
KK hated bush


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE&feature=related
> ...


since it was proven that he was WRONG
there was NO stand down order given


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

diveconspirasist believe these firemen at the scene are liars and morons..and working for the toofers
but NIST professional liars that where not there..USA today psyops agents are truthful...lol


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2009)

eots said:


> diveconspirasist believe these firemen at the scene are liars and morons..and working for the toofers
> but NIST professional liars that where not there..USA today psyops agents are truthful...lol


which is a complete LIE
i never said any such thing

the first responders hate you assholes


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

Not sure what report this is.

I actually have not read much of the government reports.[/QUOTE]

you didnt have to tell me that.I already knew that.a dis in fo agent like you doesnt care about the truth as we both know,you only care about churning out the usual amount of bullshit they pay you to do.as long as they pay you your money your getting paid for,thats all you care about.


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > diveconspirasist believe these firemen at the scene are liars and morons..and working for the toofers
> ...



*link please*....[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQyi3jrz1so[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

C-101 said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > H
> ...



Im sure terral and eots have already taken you to school on this but I got to add on agter seeing this moronic post about your planted evidence as proof at the pentagan and what a joke it is.that small piece of scrap those two men are carrying at that site which is the most famous photo of the airliner the governmet props out as proof of an airliner is not the markings of any known airliner.we know that for a fact because Russ Wittenburg an experienced airliner pilot and one of the best in the world,apparently he was able to borrow it for a while after he was suspecious about it and he made inquires of airliners and not ONE of them could identify that piece as identifying with any large known commerical airliner. that alleged engine in that blue photograph has been proven to be too small of an engine for a jet airliner.LOL.It DOES however fit the size of a small global hawk
that wheel you showed has ALSO been proven to be too small to be the wheel of an airliner. the alleged airliner according to the commission,made a 270 degree turn to slam into the pentagan which there have been videos made eots has shown before of experiences airliner pilots saying THEY could never have made.the wreakage as terral proved in his photos of what an airliner looks like when it crashes,does NOT fit a site of an airliner crash.

You have yet to show the wings,the luggage,the seats,or the bodies or ANYTHING we have asked you to post of the airliner.you have yet to show the video of the airliner coming in.you ignore that the FBI illiegally confiscated film from a gas station and hotel across the street and that there is a video out there thats been shown many times of a newscaster saying-theres NO EVIDENCE of an airliner crashing.something else your not aware of is that the dogs that were on the scene-they were sniffing for bodies and they never reacted the way dogs do when they see dead bodies. thers photos out there which shows the dogs there at the site. oh and its been proven countless times in repressed video footage and witness testimonsy that explosives brought the towers down so I wont even go there.you want to STILL continue making yourself look like an  idiot defending the 9/11 COVERUP commission like that retard divecon?


----------



## C-101 (Apr 21, 2009)

9/11 Inside Job said:
			
		

> planted evidence



You need to prove that this was planted evidence.

Otherwise, you are basing your argument on a false premise.


----------



## Terral (Apr 21, 2009)

Hi C-101 and 9/11 Inside Job:



C-101 said:


> 9/11 Inside Job said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This sounds funny coming from a guy claiming that this . . . 






. . . equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Talk about a false premise. :0) 

BTW, there is no such thing as 'planted evidence' for this Pentagon Case, but there is an abundance of misrepresented evidence and evidence that the FBI has hidden behind closed doors to hide their own guilt. The Column Line (CL) 14 Wedge One location was attacked at 9:31:39 AM during the original Raytheon Missile Strike (What Really Happened) and the *painted-up DoD flying BOMB* (pic) crashed between CL 9 and CL 15 at precisely 9:36:27 AM (lower pic) some 4-minutes and 48-seconds later to scatter all of this Jet debris that you see in the photos:






The fact that we have scattered Jet debris at the Pentagon has NOTHING to do with any 100-ton Jetliner that NEVER crashed anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm_cnFoMHjA[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2009)

terral, you havent debunked anything
LOL
i suppose all that evidence was never there, eh?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

C-101 said:


> 9/11 Inside Job said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats the best you can do in your lame comback? You been associating with that moron divecon too much.HIM I would expect a lame comeback like that from.YOU I expected better from.you cant counter ANY of those points I made so thats your lame comeback.Like i said,I would expect that kind of a comeback from the devoted Bush dupes here like Divecon but YOU I expected something better from.Its hysterical that YOU would make this kind of a comment when thats ALL you have based all your arguments on.

Im done watching you ignore our facts that prove you wrong.no sense wasting anymore time with you.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 21, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> C-101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Inside Job said:
> ...


talking about morons, you are one of the biggest

i have yet to see YOU post a single FACT
you post pics and claim the exact opposite of what the pic actually proves
terral does the same thing
and most of the time all you do is cheerlead for the rest


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

since this thread has pretty much died down,I thought i would post something else that has never been posted or discussed about here to my knowledge.If it was a commercial airliner that hit,why are these curious looking people carrying away this blue tarp and hiding something from everybody? what are you Bush dupes going to come up with next for your explanation,that they have naked girls underneath? LOL. click on the sixth link to the bottom titled 911 picture to view the blue tarp I am talking about.





Pentagon 911 Blue 
Tarp Photo Uncovered
By Jon Carlson 
carlson.jon@att.net
4-24-6

In March an Aerospace investigator with 15 years experience analyzing Shuttle accidents emailed that he wanted photos of the Pentagon HOLE and the impact engine. His plan was to determine the angle of approach of the aircraft by calculating the distance of the engine from the the engine's impact on the wall and to write an article putting to rest the controversy of the approach angle. MSM claims the aircraft impacted at a 45 degree angle and penetrated 3 rings of the Pentagon. That article NOT being written makes it evident that the MSM Pentagon Hoax is full of holes. Here is a sneak preview on the HOLE investigation: 

Press Release 12 

Using the dimensions of the typical Pentagon wall limestone block (circled in blue in the first photo), 5 feet long and 2 feet high, 

PROSOCO, Inc. 

the engine impact gouge (circled in orange) can be calculated at 52 inches wide. Pratt & Whitney lists the Fan tip diameter at 39.9 - 49.2 in. When the engine case thickness is added the 52 inch gouge matches a JT8D engine. 

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_jt8d.asp 

The JT8D engine is circled in yellow. There are now over 15 photos of the two ton engine in front of the engine impact gouge for corroboration. The NYC street engine from the South Tower crash, a Boeing 737 CFM56 engine NOT from the Flight 175 Boeing 767, which we also were the first to identify had 'only' 10 photos: 

High-Ranking Military, Airline Pilots - Flt 175 Did Not Hit WTC 





The Pentagon has formulated a new Rule of Evidence for the 9/11 Hoax: If an object is missing or covered over in latter photos, it is CONTRARY EVIDENCE. This later photo shows an attempt to hide the engine impact gouge with a phony brace and a ladder. ALSO the J8TD engine is MISSING: 





This photo shows the Sugano Experiment where an aircraft was crashed into a block of concrete: 





This photo shows what happened to the wings (highlighted in yellow): 





Apparently at the Pentagon the wing outer portions had a similar experience. In this photo notice the part of a white car circled in yellow at the left margin: 





Same car after it was burnt. Notice the gash across the hood where the left wing end hit after it bounced off the Pentagon wall: 




This photo shows the wing end adjacent to the white car: 





Are these Pentagon workers bunching up to hide the wing end from on-lookers? 





Compare the people in this photo, especially the guy in suspenders, and the carriers of the tarp covered aircraft part in the next photo: 







(Note - Can this small group of men, some middle-aged and paunchy, carry the entire wing end of an A-3 over their shoulders like this? Or, could they be carrying something else entirely...perhaps some debris with human remains or blood all over it? Or some piece of classified material? We may never know the truth. -ed) 


The Blue tarp photo was first posted on a military server but NOW even it is gone as the link to it is dead. The Power Hour first brought this photo to light, one of many of their 9/11 Firsts: 

911 Picture 

We contributed to their superb In Plane Site videos: 

Police State 21 

After a scarcity of photographic evidence supporting the A3 Skywarrior as the Pentagon aircraft hypothesis, substantial photographic evidence has now tipped the scales in that direction from the Boeing 737 hypothesis. AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THE FLIGHT 77 BOEING 757 HYPOTHESIS, the Flight 77 hypothesis is JUST A HOAX. Even the FBI has confirmed that 85 Pentagon videos show no Flight 77 impacting into the Pentagon. 

This photo shows the upfolded wings of a A3 Skywarrior, one of which is believed to be under that blue tarp: 





We were the first to identify the JT8D fan hub assembly found at the Pentagon. We teamed up with the Karl Schwarz group and they confirmed the identification from their sources. Karl Schwarz pioneered the A3 Skywarrior hypothesis and struck with it through thick and thin. Kudos to Karl. Jack White has more photos and analysis: 

911 Studies - Research into 9-11 Photos 

As the A3 Skywarrior is a carrier-based bomber resembling a 737 or 757 in flight 




It could have taken off from aircraft carrier George Washington anchored off Long Island on 9/11 that is believed to be the base of operations for the South Tower military helicopter and the white jet seen in all 9/11 locations. 

USATODAY.com - Navy dispatches ships to New York, Washington 

A telemetry expert and a Avionics expert emailed that the South Tower military helicopter and airliner had special remote control antennas attached so that operation involved a substitute aircraft controlled by a military helicopter hoving over the South Tower. 

Finally, this photo shows a similar wing end on the right side of the Pentagon crash area: 





Disclaimer

Email This Article


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

All these Loyal Bushie Liars/DUPES have is one pathetic answer after another and the sad story remains the same. Here is a picture of the North Tower . . . 






. . . where you can see a big fat impact hole with wingtips spanning end to end and the whole 9 yards.






This is a picture of the Pentagon where these cartoon characters want to say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour. :0) 






Then the Loyal Bushie LIARS whine and cry about posting the same pictures over and over again, that prove beyond all doubt that THEY ARE LYING. This is not rocket science 'and' the evidence simply does NOT even begin to match the Official 'Cover Story.' Period. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA"]These Experts All Agree![/ame]

If the Bush/Obama Administrations are going to lie directly into my face, at least have the wherewithal to come up with something that begins to match THE EVIDENCE. This is also not a case of the Gov&#8217;t telling little white lies about one aspect of these 9/11 Inside-Job Attacks, because NONE of the evidence matches the Official Cover Stories!
These people run like Forrest Gump to this USMB Conspiracies Forum every day to convince everyone that *&#8216;no conspiracy exists,&#8217;* because these United States Of America are being primed for* utter destruction* &#8216;and&#8217; that is exactly what We The People deserve. That is the reason that so few of these registered members are willing to stand with 9/11 inside job, eots, Peejay, sylverfoxx and Terral to simply tell *&#8216;the&#8217; 911Truth told by all the &#8216;evidence.

  Terral[/QUOTE]

I know its funny how these devoted Bush dupes whine and cry over and over again about you posting those same pics since they know it proves their government they worship is lying.the truth hurts them.your right,they run to the conspiracy section everyday of their lives to convince us this 9/11 government conspiracy doesnt exist or martial law or ANY government conspiracy.how pathetic.Yeah I wish that those other posters would come back and fight for the truth.I miss the likes of Peejay, sylverfoxx,Lookout,Sealybobo,and Mr Jones.I wish they wouldnt have let the Bush dupes run them off like they did.*


----------



## C-101 (Apr 21, 2009)

9/11 Inside Job said:
			
		

> Thats the best you can do in your lame comback? You been associating with that moron divecon too much.HIM I would expect a lame comeback like that from.YOU I expected better from.you cant counter ANY of those points I made so thats your lame comeback.Like i said,I would expect that kind of a comeback from the devoted Bush dupes here like Divecon but YOU I expected something better from.Its hysterical that YOU would make this kind of a comment when thats ALL you have based all your arguments on.
> 
> Im done watching you ignore our facts that prove you wrong.no sense wasting anymore time with you.



In other words you have no proof.

Thanks for the confirmation.



			
				9/11 Inside Job said:
			
		

> carrying away this blue tarp





That "tarp" is actually a tent, genius.

Look carefully and you will notice that it has supports underneath it.

Also, look at this amazing blue and white "tarp".


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

*Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.* Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.  Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001). 
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06:  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.  The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... 

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact.  Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... 

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.  

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... 

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day." 


Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro. 


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


Bio: http://militaryweek.com/ 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 21, 2009)

unfortunately Eots they wont bother to read it since they only see what THEY want to see just like they wont read this either.

Press Release


The Power Hour
NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL CHALLENGES OFFICIAL REPORTS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH

Dave vonKleist                                                                                                         April 27, 2005
P.O. Box  85

Versailles, MO 65084

(573) 378-6049, (573)378-5998 FAX



During an appearance on The Power Hour radio program today, USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned the Power Hour listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, &#8220;I didn&#8217;t see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole.&#8221; He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, &#8220;There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn&#8217;t all go through that hole&#8230;It is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft,&#8230; it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read.&#8221;  Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001 



When asked to express his opinion in regard to the controversial photographs and video showing an anomaly attached to the belly of the plane that struck the South tower and the mysterious &#8220;flash&#8221; that occurred as the plane made contact, Col. Nelson said, &#8220;There appeared to be something attached to the belly and there definitely appeared to be a flash. What caused that flash? Who knows? I can&#8217;t explain it and it&#8217;s just a number of these anomalies like that, that just makes the entire picture more suspect.&#8221; The video and photographic evidence can be seen in the video &#8221;911 - In Plane Site.&#8221; www.911inplanesite.com 



The &#8220;flash&#8221; was seen on four different video angles that captured the plane that struck the South tower. Given that the flash occurred 6 to 10 feet to the right of the point of contact of the fuselage, Col. Nelson stated that it was &#8220;highly unlikely&#8221; that it was caused by static electricity or an aluminum burn. He also said that aluminum could not have &#8220;vaporized&#8221; as was asserted by the official story.



Due to the fact that public officials and news networks have refused to honestly address these very serious questions raised by confirmable video and photographic evidence, an increasing number of military personnel and airline pilots are coming forward to challenge the official story of September 11th. More to come.


----------



## eots (Apr 21, 2009)

GEE WALLY !..the 9/11 edition of popular mechanics is out... it says it was pancakes that took down the towers......don't be such a goof beave it says pancaking...not pancakes......



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxGo0KT8Z7Y[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

C-101 said:


> 9/11 Inside Job said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



but then your one of those whack job.._no patriots _...diveconspirators ...that believes military eyewitness and first responders are liars working for the toofer movement...and USA today disinfo agents and NIST are there to speak their honest testomony....so that speaks volumes about you...doesn't it..you diveconspirators are worse than the average uninformed psyop victims because you actually have been presented these facts-and willing and knowingly dishonor these first responders..patriots and the 3000 murder victims by doing everything in your power to diminish the fight for truth and a criminal investigation such a crime merits....and don't try to pretend for one minute that it is we that are the ones dishonoring...there is no dishonoring in posting the sworn statements of first responders or.in questioning the validity of the the 911 commission report or NIST and posting the eyewitness accounts and forensic observations of top level military experts and honest vetrans

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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 22, 2009)

eots said:


> C-101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Inside Job said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 22, 2009)

In other words you have no proof.

Thanks for the confirmation.

yeah we already know you have no proof in your arguments other than that tent argument.No need to tell us what we already know.see unlike you,I am mature enough to admit it when i have been proven wrong.EVERYTHING else you have said is plain B.S and insane ramblings like the dis in fo agent you truely are.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> In other words you have no proof.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.
> 
> yeah we already know you have no proof in your arguments other than that tent argument.No need to tell us what we already know.see unlike you,I am mature enough to admit it when i have been proven wrong.EVERYTHING else you have said is plain B.S and insane ramblings like the dis in fo agent you truely are.


LOL oh MY, what irony
you have been proven WRONG so completely, people are laughing at you
yet you still deny you are wrong
that also makes you a liar


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 22, 2009)

oh and frady cat on government conspiracys divecon,that applys to YOU as well on how you might want to try sometime to admit it when you have been proven wrong instead of burying your head in the sand like an ostrich since the truth scares you as we both know.


----------



## C-101 (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> In other words you have no proof.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.
> 
> yeah we already know you have no proof in your arguments other than that tent argument.No need to tell us what we already know.see unlike you,I am mature enough to admit it when i have been proven wrong.EVERYTHING else you have said is plain B.S and insane ramblings like the dis in fo agent you truely are.


Why would I admit being wrong when I wasn't?

If I did, if would be a sign of stupidity not maturity.

In your case, however, it was maturity.

And now I give my thanks for your willingness to realize certain facts.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh and frady cat on government conspiracys divecon,that applys to YOU as well on how you might want to try sometime to admit it when you have been proven wrong instead of burying your head in the sand like an ostrich since the truth scares you as we both know.


sorry, you are wrong again
its not me that is scared of my own government
thats YOU


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > oh and frady cat on government conspiracys divecon,that applys to YOU as well on how you might want to try sometime to admit it when you have been proven wrong instead of burying your head in the sand like an ostrich since the truth scares you as we both know.
> ...



But you view the government as the problem, not the solution.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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


see, thats why you end up looking like an idiot
you dont understand that its not in ALL cases
but just the unconstitutional cases where it is not the role of the government to do


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > In other words you have no proof.
> ...



people are laughing at you ? is that your biggest fesr little divecon....is that why your such a little sheep


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

eots said:


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


nope, not a fear of mine at all
but you guys have this unfounded fear of your own government without due cause
while i know there are things being done that are not constitutional, i have no doubt they would not dare to even try to pull off the kind of things you seem to believe they would do even when there is NO evidece to support your nonsense
you will manufacture things to try and make it so
and this 9/11 nonsense you do is proof of it
i know this government is incompetent enough to have allowed the 19 terrorists to do what they did, and you think that the government is so good at doing things they could pull off this event and kill thousands of its own citizens without anyone leaking the story
when they couldnt even keep a few photos of soldiers doing unspeakable things to prisoners in Iraq from coming out


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 22, 2009)

C-101 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > In other words you have no proof.
> ...



 Because other than the blue tent thing,your full of crap and you know it.thats the ONLY thing you have made a point of that that wasnt a bunch of stupid insane ramblings with no facts to back them up on.No if you did,you would be showing a sign of maturity.thats all you been doing this whole time on this thread other than the point about the blue tent is showing stupidity like that retard divecon. see unlike you and divecon,I am mature enough to admit it when i am wrong.you however CANT realise certain facts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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



Dude the government IS the problem of america.Not the solution.The american people let greedy evil corrupt men take it over and were paying for it now.thats proof that divecon is a true moron in the fact that he is on my ignore list and like the retard he is,responds to my posts.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


and like the moron you are you keep bringing up MY name, so i respond to your post 
LOL
if you want to ignore me, stop showing how much i own in that peabrain of yours and stop saying my name


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

so divecon why did the military eyewitnesses and first responders lie


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

eots said:


> so divecon why did the military eyewitnesses and first responders lie


who says they did
its YOU guys that are lying
you take something they said and twist it
i never called any of them liars
i call YOU moron troofers liars


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

so then they did see molten metal flowing down the channel rails..they did see  molten metal flowing like lava...dripping from beams...metal beams cherry red....and the NIST spokesmen is lying..it is one or the other...never mind your double think...

 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-99CLdHWCc&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

eots said:


> so then they did see molten metal flowing down the channel rails..they did see molten metal flowing like lava...dripping from beams...metal beams cherry red....and the NIST spokesmen is lying..it is one or the other...never mind your double think...


 its hard to say what they saw
it could have been a number of things
but you guys try to make it into something it isnt


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

it is ..what it is... their eyewitnesses testomny of molten metal ...and NIST contending this is not possible and Denying any such reports exsist


----------



## C-101 (Apr 22, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> C-101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


What facts are these?


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

the fact of molten metal and NISTs denial for...one


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

this is how you program a diveconspirisist...as you can see it works like a charm...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsz5hBZfSf4[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

eots said:


> this is how you program a diveconspirisist...as you can see it works like a charm...
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsz5hBZfSf4


no, thats how they make an eots


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

anyone that can listen to these scripted story's and not see something is wrong..is deaf.. dumb and blind


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 22, 2009)

eots said:


> anyone that can listen to these scripted story's and not see something is wrong..is deaf.. dumb and blind


yeah, it amazes me how you can listen to Alex Jones


----------



## eots (Apr 22, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > anyone that can listen to these scripted story's and not see something is wrong..is deaf.. dumb and blind
> ...



so response is basically to ignore all conflicting testomony and ignore the scripted witnesses that surfaced on 9/11...and attempt to distract with a non-related statement toward Alex Jones....which as usual addresses nothing and avoids the facts


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

eots said:


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


you dont have conflicting testimony, you have twisted crap


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

*DIVECONTHINK*

&#8220; The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies &#8212; all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

eots said:


> *DIVECONTHINK*
> 
> &#8220; The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies &#8212; all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth


and the troofer moron does it again, just keeps making shit UP
this is why NO ONE believe you assholes


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s[/ame]


----------



## elvis (Apr 23, 2009)

I still say eots is better than pee wee.


----------



## Terral (Apr 23, 2009)

Hi DiveCon Man:



DiveCon said:


> its hard to say what they saw
> it could have been a number of things
> but you guys try to make it into something it isnt



Listen here Con Man: You come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Forum every day with no evidentiary support for anything at all. You whine and cry like a baby when someone else presents 'their' Conspiracy Theory, but then you stand with Senor Bushie and Karl Rove and Dickless Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld pretending that these Inside-job attacks were carried out by a bunch of people like this:







This is the DiveCon Man's compiracy theory right here in a nutshell, but then he comes out here to pretend he has no explanation for these 9/11 attacks 'and' only people like Terral and 9/11 Inside Job are the "Conspiracy Theorists" around here. No! DiveCon Man stands with the Department of Defense in full support of everything that comes out of the mouth of Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and all of their little 9/11 Inside-Job Helpers running diversion for the Official Government Cover Stories! 










DiveCon Man is here to sell you the Loyal Bushie LIE that this little empty hole equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner (my thread). 






A man can stand atop the undamaged green SUV and reach up to the elevation of the still-intact second-story concrete slab, but the DiveCon Man expects you to believe the Official Gov't Cover Story that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed here going 530 miles per hour! 






The DiveCon Man is certainly allowed to is Loyal Bushie Inside-job opinion, but where is 'his' evidence that a real 100-ton Jetliner passed 'over' the tops of these giant cable spools 'and' through the 18-feet 3-inch second story hole 'and' without breaking a single window on the third floor (damage schematic); when the massive tail section stands almost 50 feet tall off the tarmac on the cotton-picking runway (my "What Really Happened" thread)! All of these military/aviation experts say no 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon . . .  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA[/ame]

. . . but the DiveCon Man stands with Senor Bushie and Donald Rumsfeld trying to convince you otherwise. Funny how the military/aviation experts in this little video all agree with me. :0) 

The DiveCon Man has no pictures of anything to present in the majority of his little baby three-liner posts that only serve to throw dust into the air and derail the real 911Truth Debate. This guy right does nothing but throw eggs and anybody coming out here to present 'the' 911Truth told by the evidence, when in reality he is here to try and convince you that building fires and debris took down a 47-story overbuilt skyscraper in 6.6 seconds like this:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/ame]

Look around to find the DiveCon Man's "WTC-7 Was Brought Down By Building Fires/Debris" theory supported by one shred of evidence, because this cartoon character (pic = *DUPE* in the middle ) could not write a thesis paper on ANY of these 9/11 cases (my WTC-7 CD paper) to save his Loyal Bushie soul. Those of you led astray by this Loyal Bushie LIAR are not even paying attention. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c[/ame]

This single video explains WHY no steel-framed skyscraper has ever burned down in the history of this planet 'and' NEVER WILL. Only *Loyal Bushie DUPES* (pic) could even begin to believe that nonsense 'and' we have plenty of those running around here. :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## Terral (Apr 23, 2009)

Hi C-101, DiveCon Man and Elvis:



C-101 said:


> What facts are these?





DiveCon said:


> you dont have conflicting testimony, you have twisted crap





elvis3577 said:


> I still say eots is better than pee wee.


 





  I see the Loyal Bush-Monkeys are still running out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Forums Board to try and convince everyone that &#8220;no conspiracy exists.&#8221; :0)

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM"]Loyal Bush-Monkeys! :0)[/ame]

  Now the 9/11 Cover Stories told by these cartoon characters are really funny . . . 

  GL,

  Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

terral, you fucking moron
i dont whine nor cry about anything you morons post
i just tell you its fucking moronic
you are the one that does the C&P whine all the fucking time

"oh boo hoo, they dont believe our bullshit"
grow the fuck up and stop doing the C&P bullshit


----------



## Terral (Apr 23, 2009)

Hi DiveCon Man:

Do you kiss ya momma with *that* mouth? :0) 



DiveCon said:


> terral, you fucking moron
> i dont whine nor cry about anything you morons post
> i just tell you its fucking moronic
> you are the one that does the C&P whine all the fucking time
> ...



















GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> GL,
> 
> Terral


 

yup, that's you


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi DiveCon Man:
> 
> Do you kiss ya momma with *that* mouth? :0)
> 
> ...



I cannot comment on most of the events of 9/11 but being a pilot and a machinist I can without reservation state that the pentagon did not get hit by the plane they say was involved.  The hole in the second pentagon picture of your thread opening is about twelve feet in diameter.  The fusalage would leave a much larger hole because of the wings and engines.  The hole should be about 75 feet across.  The engines of that plane are roughly the size of the hole shown.  They are made of titanium mostly..the problem is the rpms.  In excess of ten thousand rpms ...possibly 20,000 rpms.  As the engines destruct the vanes violently blow out sideways and each blade would tear out large sections of the wall.  There are dozens of these titanium vanes in each motor.  Also there are no recognisable pieces of an airplane and even "IF" the plane could have been flown into that location much of the aluminum and titanium would not be burned.  

I don't know what hit the pentagon.  It was not a "heavy" jet airliner.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 23, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi DiveCon Man:
> ...



you'll find out here huggy that the Bush dupes here are so much devoted to the official conspiracy theory and that the 9/11 commission report is the ultimate truth,that they wont even bother to read what you posted,that they only see what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



Most people think of the pentagon as some huge indestructable monolith with ten foot thick granite walls.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  I don't think anyone seriously looking at the picture of the "hole" and the contstruction of the wall of the building could visualise an airplane crash.

I wish I knew what it is about the average human brain that disengages it from reality when the input becomes too much to take.  Shock is quite the mystery.  I never had that problem.  Anyway...the hole speaks for itself.  Not an airliner?... what caused the hole?  Not a clue....there are no parts laying around that hole suggesting anything I can put together.   Maybe a bomb was dropped?  That would explain the semitry of the hole.  A cruise missle...?  I don't know what it was ..I just know what it wasn't


----------



## Terral (Apr 23, 2009)

Hi Huggy:



HUGGY said:


> I cannot comment on most of the events of 9/11 but being a pilot and a machinist I can without reservation state that the pentagon did not get hit by the plane they say was involved.



We agree 100 percent. 






The pictures of the standing E-ring wall say no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here. Period. The fact that so many USMB members side with the Official Cover Story says much about how Americans and the world have been DUPED by Senor Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and their band of inside-job bad guys . . . 



HUGGY said:


> The hole in the second pentagon picture of your thread opening is about twelve feet in diameter.



Actually the C-ring explosion hole here . . . 






. . . is about 9-feet high and about 12-feet wide (an oval). The E-ring Wall you see in the distance is exactly *220 feet away* (diagram) and obviously contains no 155-feet long 100-ton Jetliner.  



HUGGY said:


> The fuselage would leave a much larger hole because of the wings and engines.  The hole should be about 75 feet across.



We disagree. A similar set of circumstances appears at the North Tower (pic) and we can see the wingtips very clearly indeed. A Boeing 757-200 Jetliner is about 125 feet across 'and' the Official Cover Story says AA77 struck this E-ring wall on a 45-degree angle like this:






That means your 125-feet wingspan increases to about 177 feet, which means the port-side wingtip should have extended over to the Column Line (CL) 5 location. 

Picture Too Big << Click

However, the damage schematic shows Column #9 and #10 still standing 'and' Column #9 was blown back in 'our direction' by explosions taking place 'inside' the Pentagon. *April Gallop* (my thread) was sitting just inside the CL-6 location 'and' walked away from this attack, which means the events of the Official Cover Story never happened.



HUGGY said:


> The engines of that plane are roughly the size of the hole shown.



We agree (pic and pic).



HUGGY said:


> They are made of titanium mostly..the problem is the rpms.  In excess of ten thousand rpms ...possibly 20,000 rpms.  As the engines destruct the vanes violently blow out sideways and each blade would tear out large sections of the wall.



We agree. The *Official Cover Story* has our 'two' 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines covering the distance (330 feet) between these two masonry walls in about *.39 seconds *going a whopping 530 miles per hour, but . . . 






. . . all we have for C-ring damage evidence is this single little explosion hole. :0) I explain how this hole was created in my letter to Bill Veale (April Gallop's attorney) here. 



HUGGY said:


> There are dozens of these titanium vanes in each motor.  Also there are no recognizable pieces of an airplane and even "IF" the plane could have been flown into that location much of the aluminum and titanium would not be burned.



We agree. Your Pentagon testimony agrees with that of the military and aviation experts in this short 6-minute video:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA[/ame] 

I do believe that Huggy agrees with everything said by all of these witnesses.



HUGGY said:


> I don't know what hit the pentagon.  It was not a "heavy" jet airliner.



I know exactly what hit the Pentagon 'and' when each of the attacks took place (What Really Happened) from years of dedicated research of all the evidence that nobody here can refute in a kabillion years. If anybody here wants to bump that "What Really Happened" thread, then I am happy to answer your Pentagon questions with another 911Truth presentation. 

Thanks for your valuable input,

GL,

Terral


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Huggy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't co-sign your witnesses. I didn't open up any of your boxes.  My input is based on my own experience.  

In the picture of the hole it has a parking sign next to it.  It is easy to calculate the size of it.

The scope and ramifications of what really happened on 9/11 make the Kennedy assasination look like a minor parking violation.

How did it happen?  It was too big to fail.


----------



## Terral (Apr 23, 2009)

Hi Huggy:



HUGGY said:


> Most people think of the pentagon as some huge indestructible monolith with ten foot thick granite walls.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  I don't think anyone seriously looking at the picture of the "hole" and the construction of the wall of the building could visualize an airplane crash.



The problem is that a vast majority of the Sheeple sit back like *little baby birds* (pic) waiting for whatever Senor Bushie and his gang drop into their waiting bellies without regard for even looking at any pictures of the standing E-Ring wall.






This is one of the clearest and most concise pictures taken of the standing E-ring wall that shows the 18-feet 3-inch second story hole and unbroken windows where the fantasy 100-ton Jetliner supposedly crashed. 






The Raytheon Missile (nose entering right-hand frame) was moving at supersonic speeds to tear a gaping gash through the generator fence and strike the Column Line (CL) 14 location on a 45-degree angle from your right, which means some of the giant cable spools were tipped back in our direction from the massive explosion. 



HUGGY said:


> I wish I knew what it is about the average human brain that disengages it from reality when the input becomes too much to take.  Shock is quite the mystery.  I never had that problem.



Me neither; at least with regard to these 9/11 inside-job attacks. This Pentagon evidence is nothing in comparison to the 'cut and dry' case of . . . 






. . . the EMPTY HOLE for the Shanksville/Flight 93 case (my thread). I mean, the Sheeple are delusional beyond our abilities to fathom when this little empty hole . . . 






. . . (click on the video clip) is confused for a crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Then I show them the same empty hole in the same empty field in *US Geological Survey picture* (here) taken on *April 20, 1994* and they still run like lemmings (pic) over the cliff after Loyal Bushie LIES. Then I show them the little short video of "*The Flight 93 FRAUD*" . . . 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s&NR=1[/ame]

. . . and Loyal Bushie LIES remain very much on the menu . . . 



HUGGY said:


> Anyway...the hole speaks for itself.



No. Take a good look at the poll stats. :0)  



HUGGY said:


> Not an airliner?... what caused the hole?  Not a clue....there are no parts laying around that hole suggesting anything I can put together.








There are lots of Military Jet parts from the retrofitted DoD Flying BOMB explained in my "What Happened" OP. Jon Carlson explains which Jet hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM here. 



HUGGY said:


> Maybe a bomb was dropped?  That would explain the semitry of the hole.  A cruise missle...?  I don't know what it was ..I just know what it wasn't



The evidence says that the Pentagon was struck by a *Raytheon AGM-154A Joint Standoff Weapon *(link), using a series of bomblet accessories (pic) that created the damage along this 45-degree path of destruction (pic and pic and pic).

Thank you again for your valuable input that might help some of the Sheeple to wake the hell up already. :0) 

GL,

Terral


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Huggy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They're starting to figure out the truth about torture, lying us into war, etc.

And now actual tv hosts are starting to suggest that Cheney wants America to get hit by another terrorist attack so that it helps the GOP politically.

Once people understand that yes the GOP is that evil, then it won't be that much of a stretch to assume they knew 9-11 was coming.

It already looks that way.  Now we just need to put all the evidence together.  

Soon tv news programs will start talking about PNAC.

I can't wait.  Un conspiracy theorists will be able to say I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!

And hopefully Cheney goes to jail and we can take the fortune that he has made from Haloburton.  And we can take Bush's  money too.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Huggy:
> ...


what a fascist you are


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



You don't even know the meaning of the word.  If you did, you would know you were just projecting.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 you say you want to take things from people you dont like without a shred of due process and you call me a fascist?

fuck off asshole


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



ya thats not fair your way to juvenile to be a real fascist...more like ...a brown shirt


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

*just like your hero* divecon..its alright


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3IbvQ0PKBA[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

eots said:


> *just like your hero*
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3IbvQ0PKBA


you can fuck off too asshole


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *just like your hero*
> ...



its not my fault you believe fascist liars..over first responders and patriots


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

eots said:


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


thus showing what a fucking liar you are


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 23, 2009)

Thank you again for your valuable input that might help some of the Sheeple to wake the hell up already. :0) 

Yes Huggie Thank you for coming on here and sharing your valuable imput with us.Like he said,maybe the sheep on here will take what an airline pilot such as yourself has to say seriously and will wake them up.Since you are an airliner pilot,please explain to the loyal Bush dupes here how its also impossible for an airliner to have hit the pentagan there because of the fact that it would have hit and damaged several cars on the streets across from it coming in at that low altitude and what expert pilots have said in VIDEOS that the Bush dupes always ignore and never watch when people such as myself show it to them,that it would also be impossible for the airliner to make the 270 degree turn they said it did to come into the pentagan and hit the building and also that it would have torched the grounds there with firemarks and that the grass would not remain green like they do in the photos.

And also that it would be pretty much impossible to do without people in the traffic towers to tell them  the headings and everything having to see through the clouds and all would be impossible to do without air traffic support.Please explain that to them for me if you dont mind.  They always ignore these little facts also that a controller was quoted saying she thought for sure it was a military jet fighter because an airliner could not perform those kinds of incredible manuvers they did.

Funny that you mentioned the kennedy assassination because till 9/11 came along,that was what i always devoted all my time to when I wasnt working or sleeping was reading and researching the kennedy assassination all these years.the movie JFK woke me up and I have never looked at the united states of america the same way I used to.I have met several witnesses that were there that day and read over 100 books on the event.The evidence for that is overwhelming it was the CIA/MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX that Eisenhower warned the american people about in his farewell address to be aware of.The evidence is even MORE overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job since NOW we have the internet and technology we didnt have back then to look at.The thing is,their both tied into each other and both are connected.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 23, 2009)

its not my fault you believe fascist liars..over first responders and patriots[/QUOTE]

exactly.and afraid of the truth about government conspiracy such as the kennedy assassination as well.


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



well make up your mind ..do you believe the official Bush story or do you believe the testomony of first responders ?...and don't give me your twist their word lie to squirm out of it ...there is no twisting ..just their testomony in their words..and the only way you can deal with that fact is ....diveconthink and denial


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

eots said:


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


the thing is
there is no "official bush story"
thats whats so fucked up by you assholes
there is only a SMALL minority of morons in this country that believe what you do, and the people you use and twist their words hate you guys


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



We got tons of evidence.  Any one piece of evidence is damning, so just wait till we put it all together. 

Something the "liberal media" couldn't seem to do for 8 fucking years.  Thanks Rupert Murdoc and people like you who now own and control the media and the message.

And you guys didn't want to listen to us in 2003 when we said, "hey guys, it looks like the things the GOP are doing are really dangerous, cheney's letting energy companies gouge us, it looks like they might be spreading our troops thin so they can call in Cheney's Haloburton/KBR/Blackwater and it looks like Bush's oil buddies are taking advantage of Iraq oil, etc.  

We couldn't prove anything because the US Prosecutors were all loyal Bush lapdogs.  And the GOP Congress wouldn't do anything.  

You guys said we should just shut up because Bush was fighting a war and we were being unpatriotic.  Remember that you fucking moron or were you too young to remember that?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



You are wrong.  The numbers told Obama that the public does want to know.  

Remember you guys were trying to sell us on "putting the past behind us".

Well most Americans believe you can not turn the page without first reading it.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



By the way.  You should look at the number from month to month and year to year regarding the question, 

HOW MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE SADDAM HAD WMD's.

At one point I could have showed you that most Americans believed Bush's bullshit.  But if you look at the numbers now, you'd see about 55% don't believe that anymore.

And how many people still think Saddam had something to do with 9-11?

That's what happens when you have a liar for a President and a Media that is in their hip pocket.

So don't tell me what most Americans believe.  I mean, I want to know, but don't show me that as proof of somethign being true or not.  Most Americans are dumb.  Just look at your family tree.  How many dummies are on that?


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



aren't you embarrassed ?..in always avoiding the question with denial and empty false accusations about how first responders hate the record of their ...own testomony..and can you explain how you twist words like... _molten metal...molten metal...like in a foundry flowing down the channel rails...like lave_


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2009)

Alex Jones, History Channel 9/11: Controlled Demolition Inc & America Rebuilds


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 23, 2009)

eots said:


> aren't you embarrassed ?..


no, but YOU should be


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> Thank you again for your valuable input that might help some of the Sheeple to wake the hell up already. :0)
> 
> Yes Huggie Thank you for coming on here and sharing your valuable imput with us.Like he said,maybe the sheep on here will take what an airline pilot such as yourself has to say seriously and will wake them up.Since you are an airliner pilot,please explain to the loyal Bush dupes here how its also impossible for an airliner to have hit the pentagan there because of the fact that it would have hit and damaged several cars on the streets across from it coming in at that low altitude and what expert pilots have said in VIDEOS that the Bush dupes always ignore and never watch when people such as myself show it to them,that it would also be impossible for the airliner to make the 270 degree turn they said it did to come into the pentagan and hit the building and also that it would have torched the grounds there with firemarks and that the grass would not remain green like they do in the photos.
> 
> ...



Try to read more carefully.  I am not an "airline" pilot.  The largest plane I have flown is a twin engine Cessna 402.  It carries 10 passengers or approximately 2,000 lbs in cargo which is the configuration I was using.

As far as proving that the plane could have flown the flight path go ask someone that owns a flight simulator.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > aren't you embarrassed ?..
> ...



If Cheney is hoping for another 9-11 type attack on America so it can help the GOP, why is it so hard to believe that they let 9-11 happen?  They clearly see the victims of 9-11 as collateral damage.  No big deal, right?  And there really isn't any credible reason why Cheney had control of NORAD the day of the attack.  That's never happened before in US history.  And isn't it odd that we get hit when NORAD is taken offline.  Coincidence?  Only if you are a god damned brainwashed right winger.    

Funny that you guys know how to speculate about Vince Foster but can't put 2 & 2 together on this one.

What would you do if you found out they did let 9-11 happen?  Would you defend them or finally distance yourself from them?


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. ...


George Orwell


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


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


the fact is, Cheney DIDNT have control of NORAD
that is a LIE


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. ...
> 
> 
> George Orwell


so why do you want everyone to think 2+2=5????


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

fact is divecon is a lie or is in deep denial and should put down his ratted copy of popular mechanics


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




If that is true, I would admit being wrong.  But I doubt that is a myth.  I'll look.


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRJAI4-e7Xw[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRJAI4-e7Xw


again, that was PROVEN TO BE WRONG


hmmm, why are you all of a sudden believing something from the 9/11 cxommission??????


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

*Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army &#8211; Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac *Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRJAI4-e7Xw
> ...



unfounded explanations  or denal from PM magazine  is proof of nothing


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


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


but all of a sudden you trust someone in the goverment and someone part of the 9/11 commission


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



he's still better than pee wee.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




From what I just read, it looks like he was.

9/11 Facts

I suspect most of this stuff is going to come out as fact in the near future.  I'll remember that you said Cheney didn't have control of NORAD.  So when you are proven wrong AGAIN, it'll just cement in my mind that it is people like you who call me a partisan hack and you who call me a conspiracy theory.

And it was you and people like you who Bush/Cheney knew they could put one over on.  And they used the corporate media which you actually believe is liberal.

You are the typical American.

This site says he wasn't in charge of NORAD.  I'm not buying this one:

Cheney in charge of NORAD - 911myths

But this one looks pretty good:

In an argument of over 600 pages and 1,000 footnotes, Crossing the Rubicon makes the case for official complicity within the U.S. government and names Dick Cheney as the prime suspect in the crimes of 9/11. Since the publication of this book (to which I had the privilege of contributing a chapter), many people have asked to hear the case against Cheney argued "short & sweet."

I will make it as short as possible, but it can never be sweet.

There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney's guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon. 
Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11. (Click here for a summary of these points)


Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime." (Click here for a summary of these points)


Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management. (Click here for a summary of these points) 

Find the errors in it please

Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. ...
> ...



Cheney is an evil son of a bitch.  I doubt anyone here has any "facts" as to what that piece of shit was doing on 9/11.  I do know that DC was a signator on the Project for a New American Century which advocated a pre-emtive war with Iraq even before Bushes administration.  Clinton rejected thier goals and suprise-suprise the outing of Monicas blow job was his reward.  I would not put ANYTHING past Cheney.

Oh Ya...what was the info from the black boxs on the pentagon crash?  Were they recovered?  I don't waste much time on this subject because I already know it was a scam in that just the pentagon "crash" alone cannot be believed.  Changing "history" back to match the facts would take more energy than I could summon.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Michael Ruppert is not a reliable source.


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

most of the commission witnesses where honest ..but they where never called to testify or their testomony simply omitted from the report...like building 7 for example


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



The best argument against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with a voter.  Churchill.  

Either that or read 5 minutes of DiveCon's thoughts.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I thought he was in charge of NORAD on 9/11, Dive. (not that he ordered a stand-down, though)  but fuck, I did a google search and all I could find were conspiracy sites and blogs.  So I gave up looking.


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. 

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

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


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Just don't do what Republicans did to Dan Rather.  Rove gave Rather a forged document KNOWING that it was a forgery.  So when Rather came out with the story, Rove called him out on that forgery and that discredited the entire story.

The fact was, Bush was AWOL from the National Guard.  

And I suspect that Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9-11.  I don't think the GOP would have let this rumor go on so long without challanging it if it were untrue.  

PS.  Bush would have known what waterboarding felt like had he shown up, because all airforce/navy men are waterboarded in basic training.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

can you find a mainstream media source from before 9/11 that says Cheney was given control of Norad, eots?Seriously, I thought he was in charge of it or in charge of some form of our air defense.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Where did Clinton serve?  Oh that's right, he dodged the draft and went to Czechoslovakia.  Probably  to watch them make machine guns that the Viet Cong were using.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



He was in charge.  They'll try to spin it and say he wasn't technically blablabla.  Fact is, he was in charge of NORAD.

Those planes would have never hit their targets if NORAD was functional.

Talk about making us look weak/vulnerable.  Talk about making us less safe.

We should have blown those planes up before they hit the World Trade Center.  At least the second one.  

I can't believe half of America doesn't want to know the truth. 

Psycologists have explained why this happens.  Most people don't even want to know if this is true, because then they'll have to do something about it.  The fear of the unknown.  Also consider all the Republicans who voted/supported/defended Dick Cheney.  

Sorry, but the truth must come out.  But watch the GOP will fight the truth every step of the way.  They obstruct justice, progress and the truth.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



proof?


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

Cheney recalls taking charge from bunker

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As horrified Americans watched the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, unfold on their television sets, Vice President Dick Cheney directed the U.S. government's response from an emergency bunker. 

CNN.com - Cheney recalls taking charge from bunker - September 11, 2002

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw_XDxnciGs[/ame]


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Do you prefer it come from Eric Holder and the Attorney General's Office or a bi partisan group of Congress?


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No, from a source other than you.  and Eric Holder the race-baiting bigot can go fuck himself.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


more complete and total BULLSHIT from bobo the moron
Rove had NOTHING to do with that
it was a TX democrat that faxed those in from a Kinkos


btw, moron, Bush DID his basic training and flight school and had enough flight hours to complete his obligations to TANG
so you just prove once again you will believe anything if its againts a republican and deny anything against a democrat
you are a fucking MORON


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


kinko's?  sounds kinky.  Was Elliot Spitzer there?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


ASSHOLE, YOU fight the truth
you are a fucking idiot


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


LOL
Kinkos copy centers


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNQ-HywKG5Q&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TqKLswf2k&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



He stopped showing up after.

PS.  Cheney also pulled strings to get out of NAM.

Fucking pussies.  You too.  You're probably a coward too.  Most Republicans are.  Just look at how tough Boehner looks but look how quickly he cries.


----------



## elvis (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



republicans like Bill clinton?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Bush completed his service
Cheney got LEGAL deferments
so you can save your ABDS filled rants
they might work at DU/KoS
but not with me


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgn2g4NKhZY[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMJ3WrooXbY[/ame]


----------



## C-101 (Apr 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi C-101, DiveCon Man and Elvis:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You seriously need to crawl out of the basement sometime, Terral.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ha!  You don't really believe that.


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

terrals got mad skills ...


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> terrals got mad skills ...


LOL
hes sure MAD, i will agree with that


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 24, 2009)

Michael Ruppert is not a reliable source.[/QUOTE]

He's a 100 times better of a source than your Popular Mechanics source you want to so much believe in as the ultimate truth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 24, 2009)

republicans like Bill clinton?[/QUOTE]

For once your correct about something in a 9/11 debate.Clinton is buddies with the Bushs.They have a friendship that goes way back to the 80's.The republicans-the reprocrats  and democrats-the demopublicans are the same party here to serve the same agenda of the elite.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> republicans like Bill clinton?



For once your correct about something in a 9/11 debate.Clinton is buddies with the Bushs.They have a friendship that goes way back to the 80's.The republicans-the reprocrats  and democrats-the demopublicans are the same party here to serve the same agenda of the elite.[/QUOTE]

What about Republicans trying to protect the drug companies from being sued if their drugs kill?

What about obama reigning in the credit card companies?

Surely you see some differences in the two parties?


----------



## Terral (Apr 24, 2009)

Hi C-101:



C-101 said:


> You seriously need to crawl out of the basement sometime, Terral.



You seriously need to explain to these readers how an empty hole . . . 






. . . equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner (my thread). Take your sorry behind over to my Flight 93 Topic and try to make 'your' Official Govt Cover Story Case! I double-dare you! :0)






Hey! There is that standing E-ring Wall at the Pentagon (What Really Happened) where 'you' say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour, according to the Official Govt Cover Story. Now is the perfect time for C-101 to explain to these readers 'his' reasons for believing that Official Cover Story LIE. The fact is that NONE of these deluded people 'agreeing' with the Official Cover Story can produce even one picture of Flight 93 nor Flight 77 crashed A.N.Y.W.H.E.R.E.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60"]Bush Is LYING About 9/11 And So Are "YOU"[/ame]

No steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed from building fires in the history of this world, but 'you' say this . . . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]This Is Controlled Demolition AND C-101 Is LYING[/ame]

. . . represents a 47-story overbuilt skyscraper collapsing into its own footprint . . . 






. . . from building fires and debris (This Was '*Definitely*' A Controlled Demolition). Look at the faces of the buildings next door to realize WTC-7 collapsed CD-style straight down at freefall speed into its own footprint! 

Watch This Six-Minute WTC-7 Video

You certainly have a lot of nerve to come out here to make a completely Loyal Bush-Monkey FOOL out of yourself, when ALL of the 9/11 evidence agrees 100 percent with me.

Now C-101 can start his own Flight 93/Shanksville, Flight 77/Pentagon and WTC-7 "Building Fires Did It" threads, while supporting 'his' Official Cover Story LIES using whatever 'he' calls credible evidence. 



> C-101, elvis3577, k2skier, Kalam, Phate, slackjawed, tigerbob, Toro


This is the list of Loyal Bushie LIARS and DUPES agreeing that an empty hole . . . 






. . . equals a crashed 100-ton Jetliner 'and' agreeing that . . . 






. . . AA77 crashed into this wall going 530 miles per hour. However, how many of these members have posted 'their' Flight 93 threads and 'their' Pentagon threads and 'their' WTC-7 topics in support of the Official Cover Story LIE??? 

Good luck getting any of these yoyo's (pic and pic and pic) to give you one reason *WHY they swallow the Official Cover Story*, when *the 'evidence'* most certainly says something else . . . 

9/11 Was DEFINITELY An Inside Job << Good little video

GL,

Terral


----------



## C-101 (Apr 24, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi C-101:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've already told you that I've wasted enough time talking to you.

Merely laughing at your cartoon is not an invitation for you to post more nonsense.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 24, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > republicans like Bill clinton?
> ...



What about Republicans trying to protect the drug companies from being sued if their drugs kill?

What about obama reigning in the credit card companies?

Surely you see some differences in the two parties?[/QUOTE]

of course their going to do a FEW things different than each other to give the impression their different parties,but in the end BOTH  partys are corrupt and NEITHER represent the people or believe in the constitution which is the thing that counts.as I have said before,until we get a third party created,there is no hope for the future of the world.Anytime a good president gets in office,they get rid of him like they did with Lincoln and Kennedy.JFK was the last good president we had who wasnt corrupt and cared about the people and thats why they got rid of him.

Remember BEFORE 9/11 came along,THAT was my obsesssion was the JFK assassination.
you should check out my PICK YOUR POISON,OBAMA OR MCcain thread.Terral posted some great stuff there about how both partys are corrupt and neither are for the people and if you havent already,please watch THE OBAMA DECEPTION video.Terral has that in his link as well.Its great stuff,it even talks about the kennedy assassination.Im going to make copies of these DVD'S and put them on cars in malls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 24, 2009)

Bush completed his service
Cheney got LEGAL deferments
so you can save your ABDS filled rants
they might work at DU/KoS
but not with me[/QUOTE]

Ha!  You don't really believe that.  [/QUOTE]

obviously another one of his fairy tales like popular mechanics he so much wants to believe in as the ultimate truth.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> obviously another one of his fairy tales like popular mechanics he so much wants to believe in as the ultimate truth.


obviously you are a complete idiot


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 24, 2009)

something I dont get is WHY Divecon is so obsessed with 9/11 and none of the other conspiracy threads here .I mean come on,theres plenty of other conspiracy threads here.Like I just got finished posting on an Obama thread but Divecon only comes to THIS thread and only wants to post on this one.none of the others.LOL.


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> something I dont get is WHY Divecon is so obsessed with 9/11 and none of the other conspiracy threads here .I mean come on,theres plenty of other conspiracy threads here.Like I just got finished posting on an Obama thread but Divecon only comes to THIS thread and only wants to post on this one.none of the others.LOL.



and since he has stopped posting popular mechanics all he does is say... no it isnt...or type moron or idiot.....as his only argument...lol


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > something I dont get is WHY Divecon is so obsessed with 9/11 and none of the other conspiracy threads here .I mean come on,theres plenty of other conspiracy threads here.Like I just got finished posting on an Obama thread but Divecon only comes to THIS thread and only wants to post on this one.none of the others.LOL.
> ...


i have given plenty of other sources other than the respected PM


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


> something I dont get is WHY Divecon is so obsessed with 9/11 and none of the other conspiracy threads here .I mean come on,theres plenty of other conspiracy threads here.Like I just got finished posting on an Obama thread but Divecon only comes to THIS thread and only wants to post on this one.none of the others.LOL.


i have posted in other threads
unlike YOU morons


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



NO you dont IDIOT LOL


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > something I dont get is WHY Divecon is so obsessed with 9/11 and none of the other conspiracy threads here .I mean come on,theres plenty of other conspiracy threads here.Like I just got finished posting on an Obama thread but Divecon only comes to THIS thread and only wants to post on this one.none of the others.LOL.
> ...



WRONG again MORON LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


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


really?
so this threat has nearly 13,000 posts just from ME?

the facts show YOU to be the liar
you fucking moron


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

no way moron YOU are..lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > something I dont get is WHY Divecon is so obsessed with 9/11 and none of the other conspiracy threads here .I mean come on,theres plenty of other conspiracy threads here.Like I just got finished posting on an Obama thread but Divecon only comes to THIS thread and only wants to post on this one.none of the others.LOL.
> ...



yeah I know.thats something I noticed about him after a couple weeks or so when i first came here and why I decided to put him on my ignore list since he NEVER has anything constructive to say or add.further proof he is by far the biggest moron here is at least the other bush dupes here dont devote practically their whole lives coming here to this section like he does.You can tell he spends the majority of his life at this site in this section. I mean what a lunatic.This is the conspiracy section to talk about government conspiracys that have happened.. I know if I was so absolutley  in denial about government conspiracys like he is,I sure as hell wouldnt devote my whole life to coming here to this section and reading these threads.thats just logic and common sense.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> no way moron YOU are..lol


well, your posts are improving, not all C&P crap 
way to go


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

9/11 inside job said:


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


no, this is the place to put you nutty conspiracy nuts to keep it off the rest of the forum
kinda like the sewer of the internet


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

> well, your posts are improving, not all C&P crap
> way to go




its my new style just for
moron IDIOTS like YOU


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> > well, your posts are improving, not all C&P crap
> > way to go
> 
> 
> ...


 thanks, i prefer it to your waste of time C&P crap


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

now divecon has to resort to fraud and forgery...poor liitle guy


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> now divecon has to resort to fraud and forgery...poor liitle guy


its what YOU do
so you would know


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

duh duh duh duh blah lhah..fucking moron lol


----------



## eots (Apr 24, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 24, 2009)

eots said:


> duh duh duh duh blah lhah..fucking moron lol


yup, thats you and your troofer buddies


----------



## Terral (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi Guys:



DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > well, your posts are improving, not all C&P crap
> ...









Both of you look like 3-year old children filling these threads with two-liner whining. These USMB registered members and readers deserve much more than we see in your combined posts on this page. Please try to write somewhere near the Posted Conspiracy Topic and save your 'crap' for those Private Message Love Letters. :0)














DiveCon Man says this empty hole equals *a crashed 100-ton Jetliner* cuckoo, because Senor Bushie eusa_liar said so; even though he has no pictures of Flight 93 crashed anywhere.










DiveCon Man says a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into this standing Wedge One E-Ring Wall *going 530 miles per hour* cuckoo . . . 






. . . even though the C-Ring Wall just 220 feet away only shows evidence of *a little 10 to 12-feet diameter hole* cuckoo; again, because Senor Bushie eusa_liar and Karl Rove eusa_liar say so. Therefore, we should expect to see DiveCon Man whine and cry over a complete lack of evidentiary support for his Official Cover Story position, but why Eots is reduced to playing those *silly* games remains a mystery indeed . . . 

Thank You very much for helping to keep the 911Truth deliberations on track,

GL,

Terral


----------



## eots (Apr 25, 2009)

I am fighting FIRE
with FIRE so there lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 25, 2009)

Terral said:


> Hi Guys:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 25, 2009)

what a fucking moron, you cant even do the quotes right
LOL


----------

