# Barbara Olsen 9/11 phone calls 0 minutes.



## Fizz (Dec 13, 2009)

i just got the phone call records by email for the phone calls supposedly made from flight 77.

from what i am seeing from these scans people are interpreting the data incorrectly. however, i dont know that i am looking at the same thing everyone else is looking at. so, if anyone has the scans of the actual phone records (i have either 3 or 4 of them) showing the number calling from, calling to, time, date (it says 1969 on the record) and all the other crap please tell me where i can find it online.

basically, the scans i have prove phone calls were made but i dont want to jump the gun. unlike the twoofers i want to see the evidence before jumping to any conclusions and claim something is impossible or undeniable.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2009)

These are the only records I could find.

Barbara Olson calls - 911myths

And this.

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf


----------



## Fizz (Dec 13, 2009)

its the same stuff i got in email.

ok, lets look at this one.....





its does say the call lasts zero minutes. there is a reason for this that i will explain later. let's look a little closer at it. here are the important things:

start time= tue sept 11 07:18:58 2001
billing start= dec 31 18:00:00 1969
duration= 0 
event time= tue sept 11 0744 2001
originating#= 9045550004
terminating#= 0

first, lets look at the originating number. take a look at the originating and more importantly the terminating number.dont make too much of the phone number being a 555 number. its an outgoing only phone (as far as i know) and wouldnt need a number. it never receives a phone bill or incoming calls. this isnt really important anyway. what is EXTREMELY important in this call is the terminating number.

it is "0"

its the operator. there is no charge to call the operator. that is a very likely reason that the billing start is from the year 1969 and the duration is zero. if after calling the operator the operator puts through a phone call to someone else she can then charge the person for the phone call. this billing information would then be processed at the location of the operator to a credit card or collect or maybe, given it was a hijacking emergency, the operator stayed on the line and the call was not charged at all. you simply can not tell what happened after the call was made to the operator from this record but there is something that is clear......

the time the call lasted.

start time= tue sept 11 07:18:58 2001
event time= tue sept 11 0744 2001

the call to (or through) the operator lasted 46 seconds. 

so basically, the claim that there was no phone call at all is clearly debunked although we have no record (from this record) of who it was a call to other than an operator.

also, the time stamps themselves probably dont mean much in relation to anything other than themselves. in other words, the time can be off by a few minutes. the time can be from a different time zone. its really not very important as long as both the start time and end time are from the same source, which they would be.


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2009)

the claim was the call was made from the in house phone the only call made from the planes phone.. but then it came out there were no phones on this plane


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJA2zH1gc1Q&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Dec 13, 2009)

eots said:


> the claim was the call was made from the in house phone the only call made from the planes phone.. but then it came out there were no phones on this plane



what color is the sky in your world. this is an air phone record. how many AA 757s are there with no phones?


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2009)

Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, United States of America, was interviewed at his residence, [redacted]. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Olson furnished the following information. 
Barbara Olson, Theodore's wife, was a passenger on American Flight # 77, departing Dulles Airport at approximately 8:10am or 8:30am this morning, bound for LAX Airport in Los Angeles, California. 

At approximately 9:00am this morning, he did not look at his watch, one of the women in his office advised him of the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York. He went to his back office and turned on the television. At that time they were rerunning film of the second plane hitting the WTC. 



> At this time one of the women in his office told him that* Barbara was on the phone*. Helen Voss is his regular secretary. She did not relay the call from his wife. It was someone else in the office. At the time he was thanking God that her flight could not have had enough time to get to New York. He picked up the call from his wife and spoke for about one (1) minute. Barbara told him that her plane had been hijacked. She said they had knives and *box cutters.* He asked if they knew she was on the phone and she replied that they didn't. Barbara told him that *they put the passengers in the back of the plane. *She had been sitting in first class. Olson's call was then cut off.



so they put the passangers at the back of the plane but she is just sitting there by herself  using the plane phone ?




> *After the first call*, Olson used his direct line to the Attorney General, but was unable to reach him, so he called the DOJ Command Center and requested someone come to his office. He told them that his wife's plane had been hijacked and gave them the flight number. He wanted to pass this information to someone who could possibly do something.



but the FBI says one call ?




> Shortly after, the same person buzzed him again and said *Barbara was on the phone again. Barbara was put through to him. Barbara said the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked.* She asked Olson what she should tell the captain to do. Olson asked her for her location. She said they were over homes and asked someone else in the plane who said they were traveling North East. Olsen told his wife that two planes had been hijacked and hit the WTC. Barbara did not seemed panicked. This call was then cut off. She didn't manifest anything about a crash. Olson then went back to the television and learned of the crash at the Pentagon.
> 
> Barbara did not say anything to describe the hijackers, but did refer to them as "they". She told him "they" had knives and box cutters. She did not make any statements about the hijackers stabbing or slashing the passengers.
> 
> Barbara Olson's cell phone number is (202) 365-5889. *Olson doesn't know if the calls were made from her cell phone or the telephone on the plane*. She always has her cell phone with her.



but there was no phone on the plane
Barbara Olson calls - 911myths


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2009)

In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their &#8220;757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use,&#8221; received this reply from an AA spokesperson: &#8220;American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.&#8221; To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they then asked, &#8220;[A]re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?&#8221; The response was: &#8220;AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.&#8221;13 

An Analysis of New Evidence...


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Hey, why the fuck didn't Ted Olsen get that supreme court nomination he was supposed to get in return for covering up his wife's death?


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2009)

Who made that accusation ?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 13, 2009)

eots said:


> In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their &#8220;757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use,&#8221; received this reply from an AA spokesperson: &#8220;American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.&#8221; To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they then asked, &#8220;[A]re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?&#8221; The response was: &#8220;AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.&#8221;13
> 
> An Analysis of New Evidence...



yeah. you are right. its impossible for there to have been any phones on flight 77. completely impossible.

except...... (oops!!)
http://www.airliners.net/photo/0020665/L

and......... (ooops!!!)
Airline grounds in-flight phone service - CNET News

"American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday."

its a February 2002 article. 

so yea, no phones when they checked in 2004...... but there was in 2001 !!!!!


----------



## Fizz (Dec 13, 2009)

but it must be true that there were no phones because some assmunch made a youtube video


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2009)

Aa flights had no phones


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

eots said:


> Who made that accusation ?



many many in your movement.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 13, 2009)

eots said:


> Aa flights had no phones



prove it!!!

i just showed you a phone record from a phone call on 9-11-01, a picture of an american airlines 757 with phones and a news article saying they were discontinuing phones starting on march 31, 2002. 

so where is your proof they didnt have phones in 2001?


----------



## Trojan (Dec 13, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Aa flights had no phones
> ...



The no phones on the plane is a twoofer lie -- once a lie is told in twoofer world it never dies.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 13, 2009)

Trojan said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



yea, i noticed that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

Fizz said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I'll bet he says the FBI files I posted in my second link are part of the cover up.

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf

Some people refuse to admit the truth.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


> In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their 757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use, received this reply from an AA spokesperson: American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use. To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they then asked, [A]re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew? The response was: AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.13
> 
> An Analysis of New Evidence...




*From the same fucking source as above:*

_Correcting an Error

*Later, however, DRG received two items suggesting that, although AA 757s did not have onboard phones in 2004, they probably did in 2001. One item was a 1998 photograph, said to show the inside of an AA 757, revealing that it had seat-back phones. The other was a news report from February 6, 2002, which said: American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday.17 This report, DRG realized, did not specifically mention 757s, so this notice did not necessarily imply that AA 757s had had onboard phones up until that date. However, by taking into consideration this article, the photograph, and the realization that the letters from AA in 2004 were couched entirely in the present tense, DRG concluded that the claim that AA 77 had not had onboard phones was probably an error. He published an essay, Barbara Olsons Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction About Onboard Phones,18 which contained a section entitled My Error. *_

Why is it you can't even tell the truth for two split seconds?  

*CHECK MATE BITCH​*


----------



## Liability (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


> Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, United States of America, was interviewed at his residence, [redacted]. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Olson furnished the following information.
> Barbara Olson, Theodore's wife, was a passenger on American Flight # 77, departing Dulles Airport at approximately 8:10am or 8:30am this morning, bound for LAX Airport in Los Angeles, California.
> 
> At approximately 9:00am this morning, he did not look at his watch, one of the women in his office advised him of the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York. He went to his back office and turned on the television. At that time they were rerunning film of the second plane hitting the WTC.
> ...



Yes yes, id-eots.  When Ted Olson said that his wife had called and relayed the substance of the brief conversation, he was lying -- for some reason -- about his own slain wife.

This is why I say that you and your ilk are fucking scumbags.  You  couldn't give a rat's ass who you defame, how baseless the grounds may be for such defamation and how incredibly nasty you are in the process.  

You fucking suck dead donkey dick, you filthy fucktards.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, United States of America, was interviewed at his residence, [redacted]. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Olson furnished the following information.
> ...



nobody said he was lying he may have been duped like others that's why people of your ilk are such closeted homosexual child molesters and like to speak of sucking donkeys


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2009)

candycorn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their 757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use, received this reply from an AA spokesperson: American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use. To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they then asked, [A]re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew? The response was: AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.13
> ...



cuntycorns


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


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



Sit down EOTS You have been slammed.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2009)

with probably and not necessarily ? lol...ya I don't think so little Ollie


----------



## Fizz (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


> with probably and not necessarily ? lol...ya I don't think so little Ollie



again, i have shown proof that the phones were not removed from planes until 2002, i posted a link that shows the phones in an american airlines 757, i have shown phone records of calls from flight 77.


the PROBABLY and NOT NECESSARILY are from YOUR source, jackass!!! its the source YOU used and he is backtracking!!!

there is no probably about it. american airlines 757s had phones. phone calls were made from the flight. its been proven. 


you got spanked!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


> with probably and not necessarily ? lol...ya I don't think so little Ollie



Your man published the information labeled My Error. And you now want to tell him he is wrong? LOL Sit your stanking ass down little boy, you have been totally shut down by your own people on this one. Just admit it and move on.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > with probably and not necessarily ? lol...ya I don't think so little Ollie
> ...


you have not proved anything and the calls made from flt 77 were cell phone calls..so why do you pretend you have call logs from on-board phones ?


----------



## Fizz (Dec 14, 2009)

the record i showed is an air phone call, not a cell phone call. take a look.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 14, 2009)

the picture i linked to shows an american airlines 757 with air phones in the seat backs.


----------



## Trojan (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


> nobody said he was lying he may have been duped like others that's why people of your ilk are such closeted homosexual child molesters and like to speak of sucking donkeys




You think a man could have a conversation with his wife and not recognize her voice?  or do you want to go with real time voice morphing technology as your fall back?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



EOTS STFU. You have been owned. You have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting. Sit the fuck down.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



in your dreams little Ollie blowhard...they were two reported calls from cell phones only ...one from the flight attendant ..one from Olsen lasting zero secs according to the records...however two Olsen calls were claimed in the original statements according to the record..both the issue of the Olsen call or calls and on -board phones on 77 remain unresolved like so many 9/11 questions ..according to the information available it seems very possible there were no on board phones and the fact no calls were made from other passengers on these phones would indicate they most likely were not available


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


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



You know, I wished we would have another investigation, I really would like to see you squirm when you find out you are 100% wrong. There were phone calls made, the planes crashed where the report claimed they crashed, the people on board died where the planes crashed, There is no Government conspiracy , and you are a moron who refuses to accept fact even when it comes from your own people. Go away child I don't deal well with stupidity. You are close to the next on my ignore list. Your stupidity may just have you join Christopera the dead beat.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 14, 2009)

eots said:


> in your dreams little Ollie blowhard...they were two reported calls from cell phones only ...one from the flight attendant ..one from Olsen lasting zero secs according to the records...however two Olsen calls were claimed in the original statements according to the record..both the issue of the Olsen call or calls and on -board phones on 77 remain unresolved like so many 9/11 questions ..according to the information available it seems very possible there were no on board phones and the fact no calls were made from other passengers on these phones would indicate they most likely were not available



they werent from cell phones only. there are air phone records for them. 

the call from Olsen did NOT last zero seconds. it was unbillable because it went to the operator. look at the times recorded for the phone call not the billable time.

what proof do you have that there were no phones on flight 77 other than the proof you already have shown us that was thoroughly debunked?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > in your dreams little Ollie blowhard...they were two reported calls from cell phones only ...one from the flight attendant ..one from Olsen lasting zero secs according to the records...however two Olsen calls were claimed in the original statements according to the record..both the issue of the Olsen call or calls and on -board phones on 77 remain unresolved like so many 9/11 questions ..according to the information available it seems very possible there were no on board phones and the fact no calls were made from other passengers on these phones would indicate they most likely were not available
> ...



I'm about done with this fool, if he is that stupid to not be able to accept this then I am not going to waste any more of my life on his stupidity.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2009)

sfc ollie said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



that would be great


----------



## Godboy (Dec 14, 2009)

I see the spanking of eots is in full effect. You eots are Diego Sanchez, and Ollie is BJ Penn. Its going to be a massacre. You should throw in the towel before round 5, or else your going to catch a nasty kick to the forehead.


----------



## eots (Dec 14, 2009)

Godboy said:


> I see the spanking of eots is in full effect. You eots are Diego Sanchez, and Ollie is BJ Penn. Its going to be a massacre. You should throw in the towel before round 5, or else your going to catch a nasty kick to the forehead.



hardly Ollie is a nobody elite xl material at best he is already crying about running away..that was a great fight ..Diego took in all in good stride ..Diego's good but bj is in the zone and at his best right now.. I dont know who there is in his divsion that has a chance at the moment


----------



## Godboy (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > I see the spanking of eots is in full effect. You eots are Diego Sanchez, and Ollie is BJ Penn. Its going to be a massacre. You should throw in the towel before round 5, or else your going to catch a nasty kick to the forehead.
> ...



MAYBE Gray Maynard. Id like to see how well he could stuff Maynards takedowns. BJs shit was on point this Saturday though, and with top notch cardio finally. Hes pretty much the king of that division.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, United States of America, was interviewed at his residence, [redacted]. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Olson furnished the following information.
> ...




It was the FBI who said the conversations did not happen.  Exhibit from ZM's trial has the FBI stating they can only attribute one call between the Olsons that lasted zero seconds. 
U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia

Not only do you embarrass yourself by trying to demonize with shitty accusations, but you also provided another great example of OCTA ignorance.


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 15, 2009)

Barbara Olsen was hot.

A volcano of political rage and repressed sex, she must have been a fire storm in bed.

I will never forgive Al Qeada for murdering her.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > in your dreams little Ollie blowhard...they were two reported calls from cell phones only ...one from the flight attendant ..one from Olsen lasting zero secs according to the records...however two Olsen calls were claimed in the original statements according to the record..both the issue of the Olsen call or calls and on -board phones on 77 remain unresolved like so many 9/11 questions ..according to the information available it seems very possible there were no on board phones and the fact no calls were made from other passengers on these phones would indicate they most likely were not available
> ...



Cell phones didn't work at that speed and altitude.  If you look around you'll notice a new break through in technology happening right now.  Cell phones are going to be able to be used soon.  Only about a decade after 9E.  Lol


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Does everyone think Olson is just some random politician? He's the lawyer who represented Bush in the Florida Supreme court on the 2000 Elections.


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 15, 2009)

I am sure Bill Clinton fantasized about sexually harassing Barbara Olsen, if he did not actually do it.


----------



## Liability (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Does everyone think Olson is just some random politician? He's the lawyer who represented Bush in the Florida Supreme court on the 2000 Elections.



You are a complete fucking asshole.  Everyone and his dog knows who Olson was in the Bush Administration you fucking blowhard.

And his position in the Bush Administration does NOT constitute a valid basis for your absurd claim that he "lied" about a final chance to speak with his own slaim wife.  You are a fucking troll.


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Does everyone think Olson is just some random politician? He's the lawyer who represented Bush in the Florida Supreme court on the 2000 Elections.
> ...



lairabilty cant deal with the facts of the calls and conflicts in statements so he plays indignant about accusations that were not even made...nice distraction from the fact liarability


----------



## Liability (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Another truly stupid random effort at deflection by the scumbag known as id-eots.

We know there is an _apparent_ conflict between the statement and the "records."  But as has been demonstrated to you, the records are far from dispositive.  So the suggestion that Ted Olson lied about the final conversation with his wife is just disgusting.  It's what you guys do, though, you filthy lying scumbag "Troofers."  You all suck shit.  You all ARE shit.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 15, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > with probably and not necessarily ? lol...ya I don't think so little Ollie
> ...



*All you have to do is just let the idiots talk and they always hang themselves; always.*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Does everyone think Olson is just some random politician? He's the lawyer who represented Bush in the Florida Supreme court on the 2000 Elections.
> ...




Could you please point to where I said he lied about talking to his wife?  Thanks.

As posted earlier, it was the FBI that said he did not talk to his wife:

U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia


It appears you skipped right over that post without acknowledging the simple fact the FBI is the main source the calls did not happen.

The saddest part about sick individuals is when they feign indignation by actually inventing posts they never have the balls to admit.  You and a couple of other OCTAs are constantly trying to demonize those who don't buy the same stuff you do.  You constantly exploit victims and families as the excuse for your whiny rants and you never acknowledge the fact the Truth movement is rooted in victims families.  Quite frankly, your fucking sick.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The only person in this thread that has said or suggested Olson lied is.........you.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Isn't it a bit scary that evidence presented by the FBI at a 9E related trial is insufficient to question the OCT?  If OCTAs refuse to address that is there anything your or I or anyone else could present that they would address?

This also shows their constant hypocrisy because whenever physical or paper evidence is shown that undermines the OCT they write it off as a clerical error or some other mistake.  They basically say it isn't evidence of anything.  But if they find an audible recording of a deer fart found in a hobby shop they cite it as evidence muslim extremists confessed to 9E.  

The worst part is not totally spineless people like liability, fizz, divecon, etc.  We expect people of no character to do exactly what they do.  The really disturbing part is when their fellow OCTAs of a higher character see they make false claims or how victims families are exploited as a attempted muzzle, or ignore solid evidence, they don't say a fucking word.  Overall, very sad group.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




What do you have to say about the FBI presenting their evidence they can't confirm Olson ever spoke to his wife?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 15, 2009)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



eots....

What a dumbass you are.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I can't confirm the sun will rise tomorrow..but I would not bet against it.  Unable to confirm does not equal did not happen.

With yet another moronic point....you are the weakest link goodbye!

In all seriousness though...

The thing about the phone calls always seems to trip you morons up.  

For example, if Bush had orchestrated the entire thing as you seem to believe, why not have the phone calls (which you're alleging were not authentic--right?) report all manner of pro-Saddam or pro-Bin Laden rhetoric?  

Why not have the hi-jackers from Afghanistan and Iraq if the goal was supposedly to invade those countries?  

Why have them from Egypt and Saudi as I recall?   

Why not have the phony documents of the hi-jackers bear a photo of someone who was photgraphed previously with a person of interest such as Saddam or Bin Laden.

Surely pubic sentiment for going into Iraq in 2003 would have been greater if their fingerprints had been on 9/11...right? So, if all of these guys and the phone calls were patsies and manufactured, why not manufacture the fingerprints as well?



















































well?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

So it doesn't mean anything the FBI contradicted Olson's claims?  That confirms what I said a couple of posts ago.  OCTA dismiss any evidence that undermines the OCT. I stopped reading your post when you accused me of believing the  Bush admin orchestrated everything.  I don't have time to discuss claims I have not made.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> So it doesn't mean anything the FBI contradicted Olson's claims?  That confirms what I said a couple of posts ago.  OCTA dismiss any evidence that undermines the OCT. I stopped reading your post when you accused me of believing the  Bush admin orchestrated everything.  I don't have time to discuss claims I have not made.



*
Contradiction?  No, they just cannot confirm.  

A contradiction is the exact opposite story.

For example, if I call you a scumbag piece of shit and you say you are not, that is a contradiction.If I call you a scumbag piece of shit and you say you're a cocksucking cookoo motherfucker, that doesn't contradict my story about you.

Dictionaries are widely available in most libraries if you need help looking up what words mean.
*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > So it doesn't mean anything the FBI contradicted Olson's claims?  That confirms what I said a couple of posts ago.  OCTA dismiss any evidence that undermines the OCT. I stopped reading your post when you accused me of believing the  Bush admin orchestrated everything.  I don't have time to discuss claims I have not made.
> ...



The FBI presented evidence of one phone call from Barbara and it lasted zero seconds.  Ted claimed he had two conversations with her.  That is a contradiction.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The FBI presented evidence of one phone call from Barbara and it lasted zero seconds.  Ted claimed he had two conversations with her.  That is a contradiction.



it didnt last zero seconds. go look at the first post in the thread.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*
The FBI Presented evidence.
Ted Olson claimed he had 2 conversations.

The FBI cannot prove he didn't, they can just confirm that he had one. 

Sorry but you're wrong; again.  *


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The FBI presented evidence of one phone call from Barbara and it lasted zero seconds.  Ted claimed he had two conversations with her.  That is a contradiction.
> ...



I posted the link for the actual evidence exhibit they used in ZM's trial.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*Okay.  So what?*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





Fucking priceless!  It is Ted's responsibility to prove the phone calls occurred.  So in the face of flat out ignoring the FBI presented evidence of one call that lasted zero seconds you want to toss in the fallacy of claiming something is true because the FBI didn't prove a negative? Rotfl!

The FBI presented positive evidence no conversation occurred.....and you keep ignoring that.  You fucking OCTAs
 are no less fucking insane than the no plane theories, HAARP, and the majority of the loose change crowd.  In short, you're fucking dumbing down the dialogue every time you practice this type of dishonesty and hypocrisy.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




He referred me to the OP which is pointless since I posted the evidence exhibit.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i referred you to the original post (actually its about the third post) where it explains that the call did not last zero seconds.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Well here is the FBI's investigative reports or whatever you want to call them. Read them again. Seems as though the FBI believed him and his secretary about the phone calls. At least that is what I read in their reports.

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf


----------



## candycorn (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*

You seem really bent on the phone call not taking place.  Okay, lets suppose for a brief moment we lay aside our common sense and pretend that the phone call didn't take place.

So what.

There still was a second call from the ill-fated flight where the passenger told her parents to call AA and inform them of the hijacking.  They called AA.  

How'd that happen?  *


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...




Awe, poor me; Eots hit me with more Neg rep. Oh it hurts so bad.......Fucking child, grow the fuck up. Of course you are way too stupid to realize that I will eventually have more rep than you do. And if I was the type I would wait patently for that time. At any rate go ahead and pile it on because all it means is you know you are wrong. You simply cannot accept the truth even from your own hero. My Error; LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Go spread some rep around so you can hit me again asswipe......


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Right now I don't know and don't care.  The pretended purpose of this thread is to determine if olson talked to his wife.  There is no evidence he did.  There is evidence he did not.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Aren't you someone who complains troofers get hung up on stupid details?  Okay sherlock I will agree the call did not last zero seconds.  Wow! That means there is evidence olson talked to his wife! Or.  Maybe. Not.

The zero seconds thing doesn't matter. The fbi produced evidence no conversation took place.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Now "belief" qualifies as evidence in some form?  Get real.  The fbi produced evidence no conversation took place.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I'm sorry is that the evidence that said they could not confirm? We have a report from the FBI talking about the phone calls and the witnesses, An AT&T operator Olsons secretary, and Olsen himself. 
Then we have a statement that says they cannot confirm.

I'm going to have to believe the Solicitor General of the United States instead of the Conspiracy nuts. The man would have no reason to lie about talking to his wife.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Can you point to a single post on this thread where anyone said Olson lied?  No.  Yet you assign a strawman to "conspiracy nuts" when nobody has made that claim.

The FBI produced positive evidence of one call from Barbara that never lasted even a second.  Meaning there is no way in hell a conversation took place.

This is why OCTAs are the bush version of the loose change crowd.  You fucking ignore positive evidence and call people names to compensate for your dishonesty.  Of all people, you should be especially ashamed for displaying such blatant contempt for evidence.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The FBI produced positive evidence of one call from Barbara that never lasted even a second.



prove it lasted zero seconds because the records i posted clearly show it lasting 46 seconds.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1811302

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date of transcription 09/11/2 001
Theodore Olson, Solicit~r GeneraJ
was interviewed at hi s res idence, L~---'T""""'I"'-':""""'"'-:--_....,..~~---,~__..,....---,,...- ....
~ I After being advised of the ldentlty of the interviewing
agents and the nature of the interview, Olson furnished the following
information.
Barbara Olson, Theodore's wife, was a passenger on American
Flight # 77, departing Dulles Airport at approximately 8:10am or 8:30am
this morning, bound for LAX Airport in Los Angeles, California.
At approximately 9:00am this morning, he did not look at his
watch, one of the women in his office advised him of the terrorist
attack at the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York. He went to his
back office and turned on the television. At that time they were
rerunning film of the second plane hitting the WTC.
, At this time one Q: the ;Qmen in his Qffjce tQld hjmlthaShte
Barbara was on the phone. I ...
did not relay the call fro~m~-l-s-w-l~-e-.--I~t-w-a-s-s-o-m-e-o-n-e-e-l~s-e-~l-n~the
office. At the time he was thanking God that her flight could not have
had enough time to get to New York. He picked up the call from his
wife and spoke for about one (1) minute. Barbara told him that her
plane had been hijacked. She said they had knives and box cutters. He
asked if they knew she was on the phone and she replied that they
didn't. Barbara told him that they put the passengers in the back of
the plane. She had been sitting in first class. Olsonls call was then
cut off.
After the first call, Olson used his direct line to the
Attorney General, but was unable to reach him, so he called the DOJ
Command, Center and requested someone come to his office. He told them
that his wife's plane had been hijacked and gave them the flight
number. He wanted to pass this information to someone who could
possibly do something.
Shortly after, the same person buzzed him again and said
Barbara was on the phone again. Barbara was put through to him.
Barbara said the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked.
She asked Olson what she should tell the captain to do. Olson asked
ALL INFOP~TION CONTAINED
HEPEIN IS L~CLASSIFIED
DATE 12-11-2006 BY 60324 AUC/BAW/CPB/l1VJ
1nvestigation on 9/11/01 at Falls Church, Virginia
A~# 265D-NY-280350-302
SSA 1
by ASAC '--- ----'
b6
b7C
Date dictated

.DRa. (~

FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95)
265D-NY-280350-302
Continuation ofFD-302 of _----'T'-=-h.:..;:e""o""d""'o:=:.=..r""e_-'='O..=l""'s'-'=o:..o.n"--- ,On 9/ 11/01 ,Page --2-
her for her location. She said they were over homes and asked someone
else in the plane who said they were traveling North East. Olsen told
his wife that two planes had been hijacked and hit the WTC. Barbara
did not seemed panicked. This call was then cut off. She didn't
manifest anything about a crash. Olson then went back to the
television and learned of the crash at the Pentagon.
Barbara did not say anything to describe the hijackers, but
did refer to them as "they". She told him "they" had knives and box
cutters. She did not make any statements about the hijackers stabbing
or slashing the passengers.
Barbara Olson's cell phone number is (202) 365-5889. Olson
doesn't know if the calls were made from her cell phone or the
telephone on the plane. She always has her cell phone with her


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You argue the dumbest things, now you want to argue that no one says Olsen lied? You claim proof that the call didn't exist yet you also claim he didn't lie. What do you call it that you are saying then? Please make your claim clear because if you do not believe he lied then this entire thread is done. Because we believe that Ted Olsen talked to his wife that morning.
The actual FBI reports are posted.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*
Nice cop out.  As stated, thanks for your input.  It helps more than you could ever imagine.

*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




I'm not "arguing" nobody on this thread said olson lied. I'm pointing out that is a simple fact.  Nobody has even suggested Olson lied except for OCTAs like you and Liability.  What is DUMB is for you and others to put words in people's mouths then you get your panties in a wad when you get called on it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




If you want to debate the renee may phone calls then start a thread.  Don't get pissed off because I wouldn't feed into your distraction.


----------



## Trojan (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




The FBI did not allege a call did not take place, they stated they could not *confirm *the call.  They also stated there were several calls which did connect that they were unable to determine the caller or who received the call.

Do you need a link?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

Trojan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No Curvelight needs to go back in history and be sitting in the seat next to her, while checking her ID to make sure it was her.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

Trojan said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The FBI presented evidence a call did occur from Barbara Olson but no conversation was possible.  It is sort of true the FBI did not allege Barb didn't make a successful call because they presented evidence it did not happen.  

I already posted the link to their evidence, FBI exhibit P200054 so to answer your question no, I don't need a link.  Do you have a link proving the conversations took place?  If so that FBI exhibit is fabricated evidence.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 15, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



First you falsely accuse me of saying ted lied.  (which reminds me, did you ever cite a single post where someone accused him of lying)  Could you explain why it is okay for you accuse people of charging ted as a liar but perfectly okay for you to lie and say I accused ted of lying? 

Then you assign a false standard of evidence.  How many more strawment can you invent in this thread alone?


----------



## Trojan (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, they presented the record, which shows that one call identified from her failed to connect, but that several calls from the plane did connect, that the connections held for a period of time and that they could not confirm who made or received the call.

In the absence of evidence refuting the call, and in the face of evidence from both he and others that a conversation did take place, one is left the inevitable conclusion that it is highly likely that one of the unidentified calls (or more) were the calls he spoke of.

They also presented their notes of their interview with him and others discussing the call.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> The FBI presented evidence a call did occur from Barbara Olson but no conversation was possible.


 no conversation possible in a 46 second call?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Trojan said:
> ...




I will explain this one more time, then I'm done with your stupidity again. You claim that the FBI proved that no calls were made. Yet you claim that Ted Olsen did not lie. Sorry asshole but you can't have both, and you have been shown that the FBI believes that there were phone conversations from teds wife that morning. They cannot confirm the calls. But we all know the truth, even you. So tell me straight up. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TED OLSEN TALKED TO HIS WIFE , WHO CALLED HIM FROM THE PLANE (TWICE) ON 9-11-01?
A simple yes or no will do.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 15, 2009)

Wow, the conspiracy theorist nimrods are getting their collective asses handed to them on this thread.

Too freakin' funny!

No wonder Jesses Ventura's show is already being considered for cancellation. You just can't believe anything he or his merry band of fellow lunatics say.

No facts, no proof, no evidence, no nothing.

LMAO!


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2009)

dickless jester offers his shity ass opinion...No facts, no proof, no evidence, no nothing.

LMAO!


----------



## Fizz (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> dickless jester offers his shity ass opinion...No facts, no proof, no evidence, no nothing.
> 
> LMAO!



must be taking a page from the Twoofer book!!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> dickless jester offers his shity ass opinion...No facts, no proof, no evidence, no nothing.
> 
> LMAO!


So, lets just cut to the chase, dipshit. Tell us all how this great big ol' conspiracy unfolded. Tell us who was involved. Why were they involved. What good did it do for them. How could so many people who were involved kept the secrets for this long?

Come on fool, lay out your case for all to see!

I'll be waiting!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 15, 2009)

Still waiting, eots!


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2009)

a real independet investigation with the release of all evidence full subpoena powers testimony under oath and cross examination is required to answer  definitively as to the details of the operation..what was gained should be clear to anyone and the fallacy secrets can not be kept is just that...where is bin laden  ? who financed the 9/11 operation..how did they keep their plans secret...criminal investigations are not under taken with the premise that secrets can not be kept and the perpetrators will give themselves up out of guilt..don't be stupid


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> a real independet investigation with the release of all evidence full subpoena powers testimony under oath and cross examination is required to answer  definitively as to the details of the operation..what was gained should be clear to anyone and the fallacy secrets can not be kept is just that...where is bin laden  ? who financed the 9/11 operation..how did they keep their plans secret...criminal investigations are not under taken with the premise that secrets can not be kept and the perpetrators will give themselves up out of guilt..don't be stupid


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2009)

Dickless jester is left speechless in the face of reason diminished to child like little emos...walk on home boy


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2009)

Hell I'm still waiting on a yes or no from bentlight.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Dickless jester is left speechless in the face of reason diminished to child like little emos...walk on home boy


I'm left speechless at your sheer audacity to actually believe the loony shit you post.

Once again, tell us how this all went down.

Ya see, you conspiracy loons just never seem to have evidence, and never seem to have any theories as to why.

Now, there are all kinds of conspiracy theories concerning the killing of JFK. I'm here to set the record straight once and for all.

IT WAS ME!

Yep, I killed the fucker.

Now, I was just a 4 month old fetus at the time, still living in my mothers womb. But I was a highly trained lil' fetus in the art of killing. Yep, I was trained during my mothers doctor visits by Castro, the mob, and the CIA. It was a brilliant mission. I leaped out of my mothers womb the second JFK's limo rounded the last corner, ran up and shot him in the head. I then jumped into the getaway car that was driven by Ted Kennedy and made my stealthy exit complete. Unfortunately, he drove the car off the overpass and almost compromised the mission. Fortunately, lil' Red Riding Hood was driving the back up getaway car and we made our way to the designated meeting place where I was able to jump back in the womb, cracked a beer and enjoyed a fine cigar for a mission well done!

Whew, it feels good to finally get that off my chest!

I guess ol' Jessie "the nutjob" Ventura won't be doing a segment on that lil' asassination because the record has now been set straight!


----------



## Liability (Dec 15, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No scumbag.  I leave sodomy, pedophilia and necrophilia to fucktarded pieces of crap like you and your filthy ilk.  How on Earth could the man be "duped" into thinking he was talking with his own wife, you imbecile?

Oh wait.  I forgot I was addressing a Troofer there for a second.  I'm sure you'll have SOME retarded dishonest theory any second now.

Fuck off you slimey shit.


----------



## eots (Dec 15, 2009)

that's what all the pervs say when confronted with their crimes against nature donkey boy


----------



## Fizz (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> that's what all the pervs say when confronted with their crimes against nature donkey boy


so you mean they act like twoofers.....


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2009)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dickless jester is left speechless in the face of reason diminished to child like little emos...walk on home boy
> ...



reduced to telling bizarre childish tales as a distraction from the fact that he has lost any reasoned debate over the need for an independent investigation of 9/11


----------



## creativedreams (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> reduced to telling bizarre childish tales as a distraction from the fact that he has lost any reasoned debate over the need for an independent investigation of 9/11



Hang in there.... there are some equally tough views that are being changed daily when they finally digest the facts......


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dickless jester offers his shity ass opinion...No facts, no proof, no evidence, no nothing.
> ...



Why should anyone respond?  You've already proven you will ignore facts and make false accusations to boot.  The FBI evidence exhibit showing no conversation took place was posted a while ago then you come in here and claim no facts have been provided.  Yeah, I'm confident you'll do nothing but avoided admitting your error and then call people names.  Why do fuck shit stains like you even discuss 9/11?  Oops.....that's giving too much credit.....you don't discuss it. You just try and ridicule.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Hey divecon, why doesn't your bitch ass provide the evidence cell phones could work at 77's altitude and speed?  You won't because the best you have to offer is doing rectal aroma rim jobs around false accusations with the rep button.  How nutsack dumb is it to call someone a liar for pointing to the fact cell phones were not operational on commercial jets?  You're sick.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*
Feed into the distraction?

Whatever guy.  Whackjobs like you bring up shit then when asked "so what" you back down before you go too far and say something you know you can't prove.  

Classic twoofer whackjob play...."just ask questions" and when someone calls you, tuck your tail over your man-gina and run like the little bitch you are.
*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Hehe.  You OCTAs
 are fucking priceless!  It was you who brought up May's calls in post 66:


(candy)
"You seem really bent on the phone call not taking place.  Okay, lets suppose for a brief moment we lay aside our common sense and pretend that the phone call didn't take place.

So what.

There still was a second call from the ill-fated flight where the passenger told her parents to call AA and inform them of the hijacking.  They called AA.  

How'd that happen?"


So how can you accuse me of "bringing shit up" when it was you?  I also didn't start the OP so you can't cite that to support your accusation. I clearly said start a thread on it because this one is about Olson.  The proof you tried to obfuscate this thread is you didn't start the May thread.  If you really wanted to discuss May you would have opened the thread.  Let's see you whine with more false accusations.  OCTAs on here should recruit some outside help because you are getting pwned on a regular basis.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> that's what all the pervs say when confronted with their crimes against nature donkey boy



All pervs agree that you are a necrophiliac pedolphilac sodomist?

Interesting.

You are still a slimey shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > that's what all the pervs say when confronted with their crimes against nature donkey boy
> ...




I bet you can't find ten consecutive posts you have made where the majority aren't name calling.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


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



Look fool, you clowns have had eight fucking years of investigating this shit. One would think that all of your "FORMER CIA this, RETIRED generals that," would have at least come up with theories as to why. Fact of the matter is, the people you clowns put up as "Experts" are nothing but a bunch of alzheimered out FORMER or RETIRED crackpots. You're telling me that in eight years not one of these clowns, including yourself, couldn't come up with even one valid theory or explanation?

No wonder you fools get laughed at!

Here's your independent investigation right here, done by me:

THE TERRORISTS HIJACKED PLANES AND SLAUGHTERED OUR FELLOW AMERICANS IN AN ACT OF *WAR!*
Case closed, PERIOD!


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I know I can't find five consecutive post of yours where you have stuck to a coherent point or made sense.

As for the name calling and _ad hominem_ stuff, stop your sissy snivelling and just get over it.  The art of ad hominem is a staple here in the USMB universe.  For *some* reason, though, it only seems to get under _*your*_ unduly thin skin when it is directed back to you or one of your ilk.

There's a word for that.  It rhymes with "hypocrite."  No wait.  That IS the word.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

Let us make this a bit more stark and clear for these Troofers to answer.

The records might be interpreted as suggesting that the phone call from Barbara to Ted never happened (like, for example, the zero seconds duration references)

Contrasted with that, however, is the testimony (FBI interview) of Ted where he said he had spoken with his wife at that time prior to the loss of that airliner.

The Troofers have suggested that somebody may have "duped" Ted.

How the fuck did they do that?

Why would they have done that AT THAT TIME?

*Is it more logical to believe* that the records are clear and right and that Ted either DIDN'T have any such conversation or that he got "duped" somehow 

*OR* *is it more logical to believe* that the records are somehow unclear and/or misleading AND that Ted DID have a conversation with his own wife?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 16, 2009)

Notice how not one these twufer clowns can explain how the hijackers are shown very clearly on videotape going through security and boarding the planes. Nor can they explain the homemade videos the hijackers left FOR ALL TO SEE basically telling the world that they intend to become martyrs by commiting the blatant act THEY commited. They also can't explain the security videos at the pentagon very clearly showing a freakin' AIRLINER approaching and then penetrating the pentagon walls.

The fact of the matter is, the twufer clowns believe that if Rosie O'donnell and Jessie "the nutjob" Ventura believe it, it must be true!


----------



## Fizz (Dec 16, 2009)

Liability said:


> The records might be interpreted as suggesting that the phone call from Barbara to Ted never happened (like, for example, the zero seconds duration references)


the same record that says zero seconds (because it was a free call to the operator) says that the call lasted 46 seconds.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

Fizz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The records might be interpreted as suggesting that the phone call from Barbara to Ted never happened (like, for example, the zero seconds duration references)
> ...



Agreed.  But Troofers will INSIST on not even taking note of that.

So, let them focus on JUST the part that supports their silly contention and then answer, anyway, how Ted spoke to her.  They HAVE an "answer" of sorts, too:  They say, suggest or imply that Ted was or may have been "duped."

Ok, then.  Let's go with that for a second, even though there's no evidence to support it:

Here are the next questions:  By whom was Ted (possibly) "duped?"  Why?


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2009)

all you have is blah blah  twoofer..you have completely lost any reasoned debate ..just drooling cretins


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> all you have is blah blah  twoofer..you have completely lost any reasoned debate ..just drooling cretins



You have yet to enter a debate with any hint of any ability to do so on a reasonable basis.

So you can whine and cry and piss your panties all you want, but it doesn't change the facts as they actually exist.

And you persist in dodging the question, ya fucking stupid pussy:

HOW exactly would someone bent on "duping" Ted Olson have managed to fake his soon to be dead wife's voice that horrible day?

What fucking *possible* point would there be in doing so?

You are certifiably retarded.

And no, you have no ability to engage in reasoned debate, you moron.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> all you have is blah blah  twoofer..you have completely lost any reasoned debate ..just drooling cretins



You can't win this debate until you give us who, how, and most importantly WHY!

At this point, you twufers have miserably FAILED!


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2009)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > all you have is blah blah  twoofer..you have completely lost any reasoned debate ..just drooling cretins
> ...



why is simple to have a pretext for the invasion of two soverign nations 
operation northwoods put into action


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


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



Seriously, yourself and your loony cohorts need to put down those meth pipes. It's destroying what is left of your already shattered minds.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> why is simple to have a pretext for the invasion of two soverign nations
> operation northwoods put into action



no need for 9/11 to do that.

we could have done that already.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


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




Ah but still then the question would remain, WHY? What does the USA have to gain from Afghanistan? And Iraq has some Oil we get 4% of our imported oil from them Both before and after the war. That would be just over 1% of the oil we use everyday. Not worth going to war for, So again, WHY?


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

Operation Northwoods is bullshit.  http://http//web.archive.org/web/20040722205316/www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html -- SORRY, but I think it's a busted link -- 

But Troofers will buy ANYTHING if it seems sordid enough and involves doubting the integrity of all things: "American Government."


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

"The passengers could be a group of college students *off on a holiday* . . ."

Yes, that's how Americans talk about going away on vacation.

That's it exactly!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Liability said:


> "The passengers could be a group of college students *off on a holiday* . . ."
> 
> Yes, that's how Americans talk about going away on vacation.
> 
> That's it exactly!



That has got to be one of the dumbest flat out most bush sucking idiotic examples of the depths jackasses seek to avoid admitting the obvious.  ON is not a guess or a theory.  It's an officially declassified document.  

What I don't get is how can you be so fucking self consumed that you are utterly blind to the fact your bullshit in this post is no less crazy than Lear saying our moon was towed to its current orbit?  What's worse is you.....people......just repeat shit.  I believe the first time I read the above excuse was about five years ago.


Look at fucking dumb of a critique it is.

Now realize it was plagiarized.

How can you not stick your own head in the toilet and beg for a chocolate flood?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 16, 2009)

liability said:


> "the passengers could be a group of college students *off on a holiday* . . ."
> 
> yes, that's how americans talk about going away on vacation.
> 
> That's it exactly!



lmao!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Fizz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The records might be interpreted as suggesting that the phone call from Barbara to Ted never happened (like, for example, the zero seconds duration references)
> ...




Got a link showing that the FBI exhibit evidence saying the call they state is from Barbara lasted 46 seconds? The link I provided from the actual FBI evidence stated the only call from B Olson was listed as unconnected.  Is this more of your rewriting statements to fit your agenda like you did here: 


Fizz's edited version:

"FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."

Here is the full sentence:

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."

Why do you straight up rewrite the sentence as if nobody will notice?  That's flat out insane.  
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...vidence-of-octa-ignorance-in-full-flight.html


Kinda sucks how your lies knit a noose around any reason you should be taken seriously.  Lol.....bitch.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


There were other calls made from that flight, how do you EXPLAIN AWAY THOSE?

LMAO!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> These are the only records I could find.
> 
> Barbara Olson calls - 911myths
> 
> ...




FUCKING CLASSIC OCTA BULLSHIT. 

Only OCTAs are allowed provide links that don't prove their claims then fucking claim they have proof.

Another example of hypocrisy?  It's okay to cite a fucking OCTA website but if you link prisonplanet you're biased.

Does anyone know of a board where at least some OCTAs
 are fairly honest?


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > "The passengers could be a group of college students *off on a holiday* . . ."
> ...



You probably don't realize that you are babbling rather incoherently.

Shithead, the quote is FROM the original Operation Northwoods alleged document, you imbecile.  WTF are you babbling about "plagiarized," you dumbass motherfucking stupid piece of crap?

That raises the interesting question:  what fucking Brit wrote a memo for the Joint Chiefs to submit, through channels, to President Kennedy?

If your answer is, "duh, uhhh, ahhh, uhhhmmm no Brit would be in a position to have done that," then give yourself that long overdue promotion to second grade, you fucking retard.

Just because you like to have your head shit upon in some gay bar's bathroom toilet does not mean you should project your sick behavior elsewhere, ya braindead jerkoff.

I'd stay to chat with you some more, but *I'm off on a holiday.*

Jeez Louise, you liberoidal asslickers are stupid shits.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > These are the only records I could find.
> ...



Yes.  Here.   And at almost every other board.

The difficult search is for ANY honest Troofer anywhere EVER.

They don't actually exist.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> [
> "Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."
> 
> Why do you straight up rewrite the sentence as if nobody will notice?  That's flat out insane.
> ...



listen jackass. its really simple. did FAA radar equipment track the flight from the moment the transponder was turned off at 8:56?

yes or no.


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



To the mind-numb nimrods like bent tight, nothing is really simple.

Just wait to see the contortions you just forced bent tight to go through to evade answering a simple direct question!

This oughta be funny.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 16, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I tried asking this moron a simple yes or no question,  he can't answer like that though because then he would be committed to taking a stance and might lose a chance to argue later. That is why he is back on Ignore. At least until New Years, we'll see how I feel. So far it's great.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Wicked Jester said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



More deflection huh? 

I have no doubt IF there was in fact a different set of events that happened that day and all those guilty somehow got the majority of OCTAs
 in one place and explained how they did it with Pre-OP Briefs, video and audio recordings, the Hubble following their every move and allowed 5,000 different forensics experts from across the globe to verify all of the information as 100% authentic, and answered every question the OCTAs
 could throw at them for five consecutive years, the only fucking thing OCTAs
 would say in response is:

"We really knew the true version all along but we thought it was our Patriotic Duty to try and keep America together as one Nation.  The best way to do that was try to convince people the OCT was true because deception on that level being made public would surely have plunged our great Democ.....errr.....Republic into an irreversible turmoil.  But other Americans are so selfish they won't say "Thank You" even once. Freedom isn't free and we sacrificed ourselves!"


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



No honest Truthers exist?  Can't wait to see what happens when you say that to this group:

NYC Coalition For Accountability Now

We know you don't have the balls so go back to your coloring books.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Dec 16, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Put that group in front of my face. I guarantee I'll have no problem telling them they are a bunch of loony fucking morons!

Seriously dude, get some intervention action going. That meth is destroying your brain.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What the fuck do I care what a liar thinks?

Keep in mind, you never once quoted it honestly.  All 5+ times you quoted you purposefully changed the sentence with your edited version:

Fizz's edited version:

"FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."

You straight up lied by cutting off the first part of the sentence.  Here is the full sentence:

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56."

So tell us wizard of the lies, if the sentence didn't matter one way or the other how come you never quoted it honestly?  Five times you made a concerted effort to leave out the part that undermined your claim.


Did FAA radar equipment track the entire post-hijack flight?  There is nothing that proves that. Your sheep filled brain keeps skipping over the "....RADAR RECONSTRUCTION..." portion of the CR statement.  We do know even the fucking CR admits: 

"The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to inves*tigate this issue further." 


You will respond by saying it is talking about Indy only but you are ignoring this part:

"The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying."  

First, they give an ambiguous reason why the Primary blip didn't show up.  They basically didn't give a reason while creating the illusion they gave an adequate explanation.  

Second, look at the end where it says "poor primary radar coverage."  If poor primary coverage in that area basically prevented tracking by primary how did that mysterious faa equipment do it?  Even if the software worked 77 would not have shown up.  That is why they say "technical as well as....."  That means both items are equal in value.

You have yet to prove your claim.  You toss out a couple of links but utterly fail to cite the specific evidence how they tracked 77.  You can't even explain radar reconstruction.  Which reminds me, what was the FAA equipment?  Location?  How did it starting tracking 77 "the moment" the xponder went off?

Another reason we know it wasn't is how many different sources got used for the reconstruction. Bah, you don't give a rat's about honesty so why keep up the charade? Clearly you will never support your claim.


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2009)

dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

Wicked Jester said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Einstein. I did put them in front of your face.  That's what the link was for.  They are a group of mostly families of victims and first responders.  They are truthers and your pathetic arrogant ass has no respect for the fact disagreement doesn't necessarily qualify one or both sides to be morons.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's




Is that really fair?  If you take away the accusations dissension comes from crazy kuks and druggies then that would leave only two options: 

Shut the fuck up.

Or....

Address the facts.

Why would you want to be so cruel to eliminate infinite methods of avoiding honest dialogue?  That's fascist!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's



Child, what do I have to do with your dreams? Leave me out of your stupid conversations. Unlike some I have no dreams of grandeur I accept my life and my accomplishments for what they are. Things you will never understand.


----------



## Trojan (Dec 16, 2009)

eots said:


> dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's



I think this is called an appeal to authority, with a touch of arrogance and insanity for good measure


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's
> ...



authority ??.. you are projecting your own motivations on to me..I believe that would be you who listens to what the authorities tell him...these people are simply experts in heir fields with acclaimed service in science and military..they are not authority figures


----------



## Liability (Dec 16, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's
> ...



Well, all that and the fact that id-eots is truly stupid and a complusive scumbag liar to boot.


----------



## eots (Dec 16, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Aw9Qwk4U0w[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

the guy in that video is an ass!!!

republicans and democrats together make nondenominational???


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned



well researched like his claim that the families of the passengers on flight 93 didnt really get phones calls from their loved ones but from someone using voice morphing technology?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned


that dumbfuck, when shown by the history channel that thermite would NOT cut through even a small vertical box beam, he starts with the super thermite paint bullshit
hes a fucking delusional asswipe like YOU


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned
> ...



exactly the history Chanel experiment was designed to fail using standard thermite..I posted patients for super thermite for cutting and demo and your _asswipe_ response was to hi-lite the date because the patent was issued 4 years after 9/11..and as the experiment here shows super thermite is indeed a reality that you are simple  in denial of 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8490zVpDBs&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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


yet it DIDNT CUT THE FUCKING BEAM


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

it appeared to be capable of doing so this was only the most simplistic experiment but the according to NIST buildings can fall from fire alone and it clearly burned hot enough to weaken steel by 90 % so if beams were burning with that intensity in precise critical areas would not only 10% of the explosives be required to insure collapse ?


----------



## elvis (Dec 17, 2009)

I'd like to know what Hulk Hogan and Bonecrusher Smith think happened on 9/11.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> it appeared to be capable of doing so this was only the most simplistic experiment but the according to NIST buildings can fall from fire alone and it clearly burned hot enough to weaken steel by 90 % so if beams were burning with that intensity in precise critical areas would not only 10% of the explosives be required to insure collapse ?


if it was capable of doing so, WHY THE FUCK DIDNT THEY SHOW IT?

and stop lying about buildings falling from fire alone
NIST DID NOT SAY THAT


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

No diveconmoron building fires are the official collapse theory and for good reasons if the structural damage was factored into the computer model a symmetrical collapse was impossible to simulate so it became not a factor because it did not fit...that's called _NIST science_

following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. *This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, *the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.
Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled bu*t otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,&#8221; *

*computer simulations* show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,&#8221; Sunder said. The NIST 



Finally, the report notes that &#8220;while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage *had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.&#8221; *NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, *including the possible use of explosives,* fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1. 

The team said that the *smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a &#8220;sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,&#8221; yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos. *
*
so this is the sole reason given for rejection of the controlled demolition theory...what if the critical column was treated with thermite paint and super heated how much of an explosion would it take then ? and there were indeed massive explosions witnessed..so if it can be done at a lower decibel level it must then become a more viable theory..*


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > it appeared to be capable of doing so this was only the most simplistic experiment but the according to NIST buildings can fall from fire alone and it clearly burned hot enough to weaken steel by 90 % so if beams were burning with that intensity in precise critical areas would not only 10% of the explosives be required to insure collapse ?
> ...




NIST didn't say fires did it? Cows on jupiter are laughing!  How in the fuck is it possible OCTAs are the most vocal and at the same time the most incredibly ignorant about that day?  Hell, being the least informed is probably exactly why they do accept it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's
> ...




He's simply reacting to your constant obsessive fucking pattern of telling people you Served. We have all seen you use your Service as a tool to try and say others are wrong or they don't understand [insert soap box topic here] simply because of that.  And eots didn't say anything about his dreams.  Guess literacy is not a high priority for you.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dickless jester there are minds that tower above yours with credentials expertise and service records little ollie could only dream of that realise that 9/11 was a false flag operation..lines about meth pipes or mental illness just reflects your lack not anyone else's
> ...




He provided evidence your broadbrushing of all those who disagree with you are crazy or druggies.  He did screw up by saying it is definitely a false flag by citing those authorities so yes you are correct on that fallacy but you are also guilty of the same principle by saying only crazy people disagree with you.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




You're not understanding how the term "authority" is used in the logical fallacy.  You're claiming since people with authority (read: expertise in their respective fields) believe it was a false flag op then it must be true.  "Authority" in this context does not mean power in the same sense of a cop having the authority (power) to pull a driver off the road.  One of the most widely known uses of fallacy of appeal to authority is the lochness monster.  It was claimed a Doctor witnessed the creature and based solely on the authority of him being a doctor many people believed it was true.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned
> ...



The history channel? Rotfl! Why not cite an equally laughable source on 9/11 like popular mechanics?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Read the post again.  I pointed out the clear majority of your posts are nothing but namecalling.  I never complained simply about ad homs.....I just pointed out that is all you have to contribute.  As for you not being able to find 5 straight posts from me that you can comprehend.....that makes perfect sense.  You obviously are not saturated with comprehension skills so I would be shocked if you could find two consecutive posts from any poster that you could comprehend.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> Let us make this a bit more stark and clear for these Troofers to answer.
> 
> The records might be interpreted as suggesting that the phone call from Barbara to Ted never happened (like, for example, the zero seconds duration references)
> 
> ...



Holy shit you truly are mentally handicapped!  They claim he was duped to support the false flag theory.  So why would someone dupe ted "at that time?" Because if duping him was designed as part of a false flag op then it would have been really fucking stupid to call and pretend to be his wife on a hijacked plane the day before 9/11.  


It's also a fucking classic OCTA move to ignore the evidence and claim the records are wrong.  This is why you guys are so fucking pathetic.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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




Wtf?  I'm just now beginning to realize how fucking ignorant you guys are.  What would the US have to gain? Are.  You.  Fucking.  Serious?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> Operation Northwoods is bullshit.  http://http//web.archive.org/web/20040722205316/www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html -- SORRY, but I think it's a busted link --
> 
> But Troofers will buy ANYTHING if it seems sordid enough and involves doubting the integrity of all things: "American Government."




Thank you! Thank you! No, really, THANK YOU!  Why? Because you just provided another excellent example of how badly OCTAs agendas prevent them from seeing basic facts.  This link contains the actual fucking official declassified documents for the operation:

"First coming to light in the year 2000 through a Freedom of Information Act request, key excerpts from the Operation Northwoods documents are provided below."

15 pages of declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff 
documents on Operation Northwoods 
as posted on the National Security Archive 
of George Washington University:

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962


"The Operation Northwoods documents were approved in writing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff &#8211; the top generals of each branch of the US armed forces &#8211; and submitted to the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara."
Operation Northwoods

What were your reasons for claiming it wasn't true?

1. A dead link.

2. The phrase "off on a holiday."


You just got pwned. Big. Time.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned



Your gentleman and scholar is a nutcase who believes that Pearl Harbor was an inside job. He has zero credibility, he ignores more fact than you and your friends.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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




God, talk about scripted and bad acting, is this a new comedy series?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned
> ...




He claims it wasn't really Japan that attacked?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Here's a link to a different forum.  It's so fucking funny how so many complete ass licking dog shit dripping diaper wrapped nationalists uses the "off on a Holiday"phrase as a reason to believe Northwoods is a hoax.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62969

Keep in mind, the same camp that claims ON was a hoax fully believes the Bush Admin about 9E.  That's fucking funny.


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Let us make this a bit more stark and clear for these Troofers to answer.
> ...



The English language is RICH in words.  It's a GREAT language.  But even so, there are no words sufficient to describe just how amazingly stupid you are.

These conspirators you fantasize about (with not one shred of evidence as support) not only masterminded and conducted mass murder and treason, but have kept it all so secret that none of the conspirators have broken ranks.  That in itself is so incredible as to be beyond words.  But it gets worse.

In your hyperventilating imagination, the conspiracy was SOOOOOO motherfucking detailed that they even had the presence of mind to fake a telephone call from Barbara Olson to the Solicitor General AS the conspiracy was underway!

One wonders how the conspirators knew that Barbara would be on one of those jets that morning!  How long in advance did they know?  What amazing skillz!

You fucking Troofers are sickening, one and all.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


because they didnt say FIRES ALONE you dumbfuck


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> No diveconmoron building fires are the official collapse theory and for good reasons if the structural damage was factored into the computer model a symmetrical collapse was impossible to simulate so it became not a factor because it did not fit...that's called _NIST science_
> 
> following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. *This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, *the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.
> Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled bu*t otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event, *
> ...


DOES NOT SAY NO EFFECT

dumbfuck


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


neither of them are as laughable as you dumbfucking morons


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




I never claimed it was a false flag op but only answered your question as to why would a call be duped.  You try to laugh that off but you once again show how fucking ignorant you are.  Go back and look at the media reports beginning the morning of 9E.  You will see Olson's report about the phone call from his wife was the primary source cited saying 77 was hijacked.  IF it was a false flag op it would make sense the conspirators would dupe a call and think about it some more.....he was the Solicitor General of the US.  

Know what's so fucking funny?  You have no problem accepting the conspiracy theory that says 9E was executed by a fucking street gang but you find it impossible to even consider looking at how it could have been done by a different group with more resources, more power, and much much much more control over our defense systems.

Tell us again how Northwoods was a hoax?  Lol.......that's why you have no credibility.  You're fucking clueless and PRETEND to be informed when we have solid proof you are fucking ignorant.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




What the fuck is wrong with you? Even when NIST says it's the first time fire is known to have caused the collapse you try to say it wasn't?  Fucking classic OCTA!


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The big HOLE (about twenty stories tall) in Bldg 7 TOGETHER with the FIRES might have had SOMETHING to do with the collapse of BLDG 7.

As for the collapse of the Twin TOWERS, in addition to the massive infernos, the damage to the physical structures of the buildings at the points of impact and the fact taht no water was able to be put to the fires -- that might have led to the intial collapse above the points of impact which culminated in the complete collapse of those Towers....

The FACT, however, remains.  Nobody said, anywhere, that it was the fires ALONE that did those Towers in.  Is there some reason you are incapable of just admitting this?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Aren't you the whiny bitch that tried to claim Operation Northwoods was bullshit because you claimed the phrase "off on a holiday" was enough evidence to prove it wasn't true?  You gotta be super fucking retarded to believe you are worthy of dialogue.  Did you even admit you got TOTALLY PWNED? Of course not.  Only decent and honest people admit it when they fuck up.


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I didn't GET pwnd and certainly not by anything your pety little retarded mind came up with, you pussy fucktard.

There is a difference (one an asshole such as you is unlikely to ever grasp) between claiming you are right (as you always do) and BEING right (which you almost never are).

Operation Northwoods is a bogus piece of shit.  Someday, with luck, Bamford might even own up.

But nice way to dodge the POINT of what I had previously posted.   Clever girl, ya slimey fucktard.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Well let's look at this for evidence from both sides.

Evidence it is bogus: 

Some random queen on a message board says it is bogus.


Evidence it is genuine:


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962

Gee...tough call.

This just proves shit stains like you don't give a fuck about honesty.


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Hey fucktard:

Scenario:  a bunch of shit lying in file cabinets in the Pentagon get unsealed and released as per a FOIL request and a document review.  Inserted into the shit is a fraudulent document.  Those folks unsealing and declassifying and releasing and disseminating the shit in the file cabinets may not even be aware that some person or persons conspired together to _plant_ the bogus document in with all the other genuine documents.  

Did that happen?  I dunno.  I wasn't there that day.  BUT there is at least one great clue:  The document on its face seems to provide a hint that it is bogus.  Happy holiday!  

Further evidence that mindless shitstains such as you and the other Troofers don't give a rat's ass about such things.  If a document even SEEMS to put the US in a bad light and if it supports in ANY way the fantasy conspiracy shit you love to espouse, then it's GREAT and GENUINE and that's all she wrote.

You fucktard shitstain asslickers are all the same.


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > No diveconmoron building fires are the official collapse theory and for good reasons if the structural damage was factored into the computer model a symmetrical collapse was impossible to simulate so it became not a factor because it did not fit...that's called _NIST science_
> ...



dumbfuck,,,it goes on to say its the only building in history to collapse due to fire ..the little effect line is only because it is considered to cause of the fire nothing more...A dumbfuck is someone that accept the removing this damage from computer models to achieve a symmetrical collapse..


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> dumbfuck,,,it goes on to say its the only building in history to collapse due to fire ..the little effect line is only because it is considered to cause of the fire nothing more...A dumbfuck is someone that accept the removing this damage from computer models to achieve a symmetrical collapse..



....and your proof of explosives is where, again??


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dumbfuck,,,it goes on to say its the only building in history to collapse due to fire ..the little effect line is only because it is considered to cause of the fire nothing more...A dumbfuck is someone that accept the removing this damage from computer models to achieve a symmetrical collapse..
> ...



That would be


nowhere.


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

*liarabilty*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Vod1N11VY[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> "The passengers could be a group of college students *off on a holiday* . . ."
> 
> Yes, that's how Americans talk about going away on vacation.
> 
> That's it exactly!




You're a fucking super loser.  Do you know who the source of that "Americans don't say off on a holiday" justification is?  Holy shit you're retarded!  Look:


Author: Carol Valentine

"Study the last sentence in that quote.* "The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday ....."* See anything wrong with here? *Well, Americans don't use the expression "off on a holiday."* That is a British expression.* Americans say "on vacation."
Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit



That same person said in October 2001 all 9E planes were never hijacked by terrorists but were robotic remote controlled mock ups:

"There were no "suicide" pilots on those September 11 jets.* The jets were controlled by advanced robotics and remote-control technology, not hijackers."
Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS


So you're following the lead of clearly one of the craziest twoofers out there!

ROTFL!  I'd say take your head out of your ass but clearly you don't know where one ends and the other begins.  HAHA!


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> *liarabilty*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Vod1N11VY



id-eots:

We all already know what the bogus document pretends to say.

You remain vapid and pointless.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it NEVER SAYS FIRE ALONE
what is it with troofers and the lack of reading comprehension?????


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




ROTFL!!!  Thank you for showing how pathetic you become when facts prove you wrong.  You are actually claiming the ON documents are a CONSPIRACY FRAUD????  And you make fun of people who question the OCT?  The Northwoods documents were de-classified long BEFORE 9E!

ROTFL!!!!  You have to be the biggest fucking loser.  No, wait.  You're always neck in neck with divecon, fizz, ollie, etc.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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


because the FIRE DID CAUSE IT

dumbfuck
had the building not had the fires it likely wouldnt have collapsed
but, the building damage PLUS the fires is what made it possible TO collapse
NIST NEVER claims the building damage didnt contribute to the collapse and in fact, the building damage(started the fires) is what CAUSED the collapes due to the FIRES being started by it


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> *liarabilty*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Vod1N11VY


which proves NOTHING
a plan that was never carried out is NOT proof that such a plan was carried out


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


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


i have no doubts that Op Northwoods was a plan that was submitted but rejected
and since it WAS rejected and the originator was FIRED for even suggesting it, that is not proof that such a plan was ever carried out
the moronic fucking troofer morons seem to think that because some fuckup submitted a plant(which was REJECTED) somehow means that such a plan was actually carried out


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



and your evidence of temperatures predicted necessary for collapse is....where ?

that would be nowhere


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



lol ...the computer model is the proof offered by and damage is not a factor in the collapse model..that's why they made the statement ..it was the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fire..idiotboy


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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


but not due to "FIRE ALONE" as you idiot asswipes keep saying

now whos the dumbfuck?
YOU


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Actually, as you know but remain too totally dishonest to admit, the temperatures reached would NOT be required to be so high as to cause the metal to  melt.

All that would be required is that the metal reach a point where it could start to buckle.

And there was a great deal of information about what the probable temepratures inside were and for how long of a duration.  The conclusion, as you know but remain too fucking edishonest to ever admit, was that the temperatures most certainly could cause the structural integrity of the beams to be lost.  And once a collapse started under those circumstances, what on Earth could possibly have stopped all that followed?



> * * * * If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. *Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C. *
> 
> This *maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen.* The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. *The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°Chardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.*
> 
> ...


 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

No fucking "super-thermite," no explosives, no retarded conspiracy theory required.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're right.  I do believe they said something about gravity.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



All the Joint Chiefs approved of the plan as well.  ON proves a couple of points but they would require dialogue above your ability to be honest.  I do agree the existence of the ON documents do not prove 9E was a false flag but only a blind fucking mouse pussy licking reject would look at 9E and ON and say there is no comparison.


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



bent tight thinks that licking a pussy is a negative thing.

He must prefer to suck dick!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


wrong again
only that would say there IS a connection


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



It is impossible for you to be honest eh?  I clearly said "mouse pussy licking...."

You will ignore that just like you will ignore I totally fucking exposed how you worship one of the craziest twoofers out there.  You couldn't be any more pathetic.....oops.  That's not true.  Everyday you get more pathetic.  Take your fat ass and do something for once instead of being such a fucking sloth.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I didn't say there was a connection you fucking idiot.  You are forever complaining people don't know how to read then you do this?  It's just like how you ignored NIST saying the wtc was the first known incident of fire causing the total collapse of high rise buildings.  Your the Mayor of Loserville.  If you ever bring your punk ass to Boston send me a PM so I can buy you a pint.


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



OH.  Ok.  Good point.  I see the subtlety of it now.  Quite clear.  Yes.

You wish to suck MOUSE dick.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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




NIST clearly says fire was the main cause so your "Not fire alone" strawman needs to be put to bed you lying fuck.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 17, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Good job on totally ignoring how you got completely pwned on the Northwoods claims.  Yeah, you won't address the facts because you are nothing but a parasite.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


did i say YOU did, fucktard?
shit, learn to fucking READ asswipe


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


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


EOTS keeps saying they said FIRE ALONE
so YOU need to take it up with HIM

learn to READ FUCKTARD


----------



## Liability (Dec 17, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I have repeatedly addressed the "facts.," you fucking imbecile.

You buy it.  That doesn't make it a legit document.

Others (who actually have a brain) also buy it.  That too doesn't make it a legit document.

I don't buy it.  Of course that doesn't make it an illegitimate document.

But that "on holiday" language suggests that it was authored in the Pentagon by someon other than an American.  Possible?  Sure.  Likely?  I don't believe so.

And why _do_ you like to suck mouse dick, anyway, you fucking skell pervert motherfucker?


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

that is correct fire was the cause of the collapse the only role the damage played in the collapse scenario was it was credited for starting the fires period...if the damage was factored in to the scenario a symmetrical collapse was not possible so it was therefore deemed insignificant to the collapse


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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



Fact is Dumbass that the NIST did do models with the debris damage and without. There really wasn't a lot of difference in the results.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


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


actually, from the 2 videos, there was a dramatic difference without the structural damage


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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




But the results are the same. The Building was coming down either way.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


but without the structural damage it fell differently
so clearly the structural damage played a role in the collapse even if it wouldnt have mattered in the long run
the building would still have collapsed


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

wheres the proof of explosives? where is the proof that something else brought down the building other than fires?

the building was on fire. that can be proven. if you are going to say that something else brought the building down then SHOW PROOF!!! 

(why is this in the barbara olsen thread?)


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 17, 2009)

Fizz said:


> wheres the proof of explosives? where is the proof that something else brought down the building other than fires?
> 
> the building was on fire. that can be proven. if you are going to say that something else brought the building down then SHOW PROOF!!!



You know they can't, why do you keep beating yourself up trying to get an honest answer form any of them?


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory  and in the symmetrical and rapid  collapse of wtc 7


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory  and in the symmetrical and rapid  collapse of wtc 7


i'd welcome a new investigation if i knew it would get your ilk to STFU, but since i know it wont, it would be nothing but an incredible waste of tax payer dollars and time
because any NEW investigation would still find what MOST sane people already know
the buildings were brought down by the terrorist attacks by flying loaded planes into them


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory  and in the symmetrical and rapid  collapse of wtc 7



so you are saying you have no proof.

got it. thanks.


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory  and in the symmetrical and rapid  collapse of wtc 7
> ...



no plane hit the wtc and damage played no significant role ... the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are_ theorized_ to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a_ theory_ with no actual proof that occurred and _no evidence _of the temperatures required for structural failure in their_ theorized_ collapse scenario


----------



## elvis (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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



you are correct about the fireproofing being a only a theory.  what about the structural damage done by the planes' forces COMBINED with the fires?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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


REALLY?????

i know, you mean no plane hit WTC7, but WTC1 DID
you just keep showing how fucking STUPID you are


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are_ theorized_ to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a_ theory_ with no actual proof that occurred and _no evidence _of the temperatures required for structural failure in their_ theorized_ collapse scenario



the proof that the temperatures required were present is the fact that the buildings came down.


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


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



No you are showing how delusional you are in your denial that according to NIST it matters not that a _small portion of debris_ from wtc 1 fell on wtc 7 that if the fires had been ignited from any other cause the result would have been the same


----------



## elvis (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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



can you point out where NIST said your last sentence?


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are_ theorized_ to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a_ theory_ with no actual proof that occurred and _no evidence _of the temperatures required for structural failure in their_ theorized_ collapse scenario
> ...



weak...it is not any kind of new cutting edge science required to determine the maximum temperature reached in a fire yet testing of samples from the wtc show no such temperatures..the fact the buildings came down is only proof that the structure failed


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


> weak...it is not any kind of new cutting edge science required to determine the maximum temperature reached in a fire yet testing of samples from the wtc show no such temperatures..the fact the buildings came down is only proof that the structure failed



the building was on fire. it came down. if you have any evidence that something else other than fire was present then please present that evidence. otherwise its fairly obvious what the cause is.


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


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



THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WORLD TRADE
CENTER COLLAPSE: FINDINGS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS

*HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION*


_core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle.,there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place._


The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

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


----------



## Fizz (Dec 17, 2009)

eots said:


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



left to burn without any firefighting efforts at all, not even sprinklers?

if not then its irrelevant.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you need reading comprehension classes

that had NOTHING to do with WTC7, remember, no plane hit WTC7


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


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


a compilation of stills with scary music in the background is nothing but a waste of time


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


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



you cant possible be genuine and make that statement it is pure spin...
it is a safe bet that with the level of devastation and fires extremely more intense than fires at wtc 7 {_which did have sprinklers working on many of the floors by the way_) that sprinkler systems failed or became irrelevant at some point and fire fighting efforts were indeed abandoned..the thing most irrelevant here is your ridiculous flailing attempts at disinformation


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, WTC7 didnt have ANY sprinklers working'
none
the water main was severed
thats why they abandoned the building
because they didnt have the water to fight the fires with


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



It is in response to Es question about the towers and insulation my little retarded friend...try and keep up...focus


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

yes that's right isn't it ..the towers had working sprinklers however ,,he rest of the statement stands the fires presented were fully engulfed buildings not random fires over 6 floors..like at wtc 7 the first steel framed building to collapse due to fire according to NIST


----------



## elvis (Dec 18, 2009)

Were the sprinkling systems damaged by the planes' impacts?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Were the sprinkling systems damaged by the planes' impacts?


YES
and the collapse of the towers severed a MAIN LINE so there was NO WATER to fight the fires in WTC7
Id-Eots is just too fucking stupid


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


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


wrong again, my troofer fucking moron


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Were the sprinkling systems damaged by the planes' impacts?



there seems to be varying reports as to the impact zone but there are many reports of sprinklers going off and firefighting operations were underway, no lines water mains were damaged at the towers


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Were the sprinkling systems damaged by the planes' impacts?
> ...



no hardly... no firefighting is irrelevant to the examples of other steel frame buildings presented that did not collapse and in infernos like the ones shown its safe to assume sprinklers are not going..the facts remain NIST does not say.._it is the only steel framed building to collapse due to fire and sprinkler failure._.it says _the first building in history to collapse due to fire_


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


^^^^^
see!!!!!

a PRIME example of MINUTIA being picked out and used by a fucking moronic troofer


----------



## Fizz (Dec 18, 2009)

well it looks like the Mandarin Oriental Hotel architects learned a lot from the collapse of WTC7 when designing it. its great it didnt collapse.... or did you want it to?


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

so you are contending the sprinklers were working in the examples presented and this is why these infernos did not collapse ??


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


> well it looks like the Mandarin Oriental Hotel architects learned a lot from the collapse of WTC7 when designing it. its great it didnt collapse.... or did you want it to?



no steel frame building ever collapsed _before or after_  9/11 due to fire.. and never will ...agent fuzznuts


----------



## Fizz (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > well it looks like the Mandarin Oriental Hotel architects learned a lot from the collapse of WTC7 when designing it. its great it didnt collapse.... or did you want it to?
> ...



yes..... and?

therefore its impossible? is that what you are trying to say? 

how many battleships were sunk by planes alone prior to pearl harbor? how many in the 10 years after it? does that mean that its impossible for airplanes to sink battleships and that the battleships sunk at pearl harbor must have been wired with explosives?

your logic is extremely flawed.


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



battle ships ?? wtf... pearl harbour ?... shut the fuck up


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


it was a good analogy, you just dont get it


----------



## Fizz (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> battle ships ?? wtf... pearl harbour ?... shut the fuck up



did you hear that swooshing sound? did you feel whats left of your hair move a little bit?

that was my post going right over your head.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > battle ships ?? wtf... pearl harbour ?... shut the fuck up
> ...


Dec 6th 1941
airplanes have never sunk a battle ship

Dec 7th 1941
oops


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

stupid...childish _and never before was there a false flag operation involving staged hijackings as a pretext for war put into action..then on 9/11 it was.._just like when them battle ships that gots sunk by dem japonie yuk...yuk...first time fer everything


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> stupid...childish _and never before was there a false flag operation involving staged hijackings as a pretext for war put into action..then on 9/11 it was.._just like when them battle ships that gots sunk by dem japonie yuk...yuk...first time fer everything


except YOU have ZERO evidence to back that claim up


----------



## elvis (Dec 18, 2009)

what is involved in the next black-op?


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

On this soil / or the middle east..in the middle east they occur constantly


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




You. Are. Some. Stupid. Mother. Fuckers.

"The navy had provided Mitchell with three decommissioned U.S. battleships and three ships obtained from the Germans in the peace agreement--a destroyer, an armored light cruiser, and a dreadnought. All were successfully sunk."
Air Power:Billy Mitchell Sinks the Ships

It's bad enough when dumb analogies are used and worse when the facts in those analogies are wrong.


----------



## Liability (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So let's get this straight.  YOU now think that postulating about a conspiracy without actual evidence (worthy of the name) is laughable?

I agree!

You are laughable.  You always have been and barring a cure for your mental deficiences, you always will be.

So, I tell you what.  Although I think that silly "on holiday" line in the Op. Northwoods document DOES raise a red flag about the authenticity of the document, I *do not* dispute that the document itself came from the Pentagon.  Therefore, I acknowledge that it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the never-approved proposal WAS actually drafted by some moron(s) at the Pentagon.

See how easy it is to acknowledge such things?  Your turn.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Were the sprinkling systems damaged by the planes' impacts?
> ...





Wrong again EOTS....From your own link:



> The NIST investigation determined that although the aircraft did considerable damage to the principal structural components of WTC 1 and 2, the towers were inherently robust, and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged fireproofing which exposed the central columns to the multi-floor fires. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse. *The fire safety systems in WTC 1 and 2 met or exceeded current practice at the time the towers fell, but played no safety role on September 11th because the water supplies and electrical systems were damaged by the aircraft impact*



The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps


----------



## Liability (Dec 18, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Id-eots' ignorance is just astounding!


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




You're a pathetic ****. That's all you are. When I showed you were taking logic lessons from someone who claimed 9E was done with robotic planes you dance and dance.  Fucking typical OCTA bitch.


----------



## Liability (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are the dumbest piece of shit on the Board today, and that's saying something!

Listen up you  bombastic stupid fucktard: YOU just made the arrogant AND baseless claim, 



> *When I showed you were taking logic lessons from someone who claimed 9E was done with robotic planes you dance and dance.*


 

The TRUTH (an alien concept to anuses like you) is that you "showed" *no such thing* and you COULDN'T ever "show" any such thing because what you are claiming is so stunningly stupid and absurd that it defies reason that anyone -- even a retard of your tragically limited abilities -- could even begin to entertain it.

You remain a scumbag lying sack of shit imbecile.

Eat shit, and bark at the moon.

Sincerely yours,

Liability.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > "The passengers could be a group of college students *off on a holiday* . . ."
> ...




Had to quote this because apparently Liability wants to pretend I didn't show he takes lessons from a total whackjob.


----------



## Liability (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Your reliance on fallacy is showing again, bent tight.

Again, it *doesn't matter* which person first noticed that oddball phrase in a PENTAGON document.

It also doesn't matter if she IS a complete lunatic conspiracy theorist.

Afterall, that only makes her a different version of you, you dickless brainless lying hypocritical scumbag!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


and dumbfuck troofer morons don't even read the links they post


> The tests began in July off the coast of Virginia. The navy     had provided Mitchell with three decommissioned U.S. battleships and three ships     obtained from the Germans in the peace agreement--a destroyer, an armored light     cruiser, and a dreadnought. All were successfully sunk. The climax of the     demonstrations took place on July 21, when the navy brought out the German ship     Ostfriedland, a great ship that had     been the pride of the German fleet during the war. *The vessel was considered     unsinkable, and it probably would have been if Mitchell had adhered to the     rules. But instead, he had personally overseen the design of a number of     2,000-pound (907-kilogram) bombs, knowing that smaller bombs would not be     successful.* Martin twin-engine MB-2 bombers dropped six of these bombs in rapid succession. Two     scored direct hits and the others landed close enough for the ships hull     plates to rip open from the force of the explosion. Twenty-one minutes after     the test began, the Ostfriedland plunged     to the bottom of the ocean. The final plane dropped its bombs into the foam     rising from the sinking ship.


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

denier morons think sinking a ship with _specifically designed bombs _ planted in _strategically areas _in a _planned demolition_ ...is proof random building fires can cause a steel frame building to collapse...and this somehow makes sense to them in the depths of their falling denials


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> denier morons think sinking a ship with _specifically designed bombs _ planted in _strategically areas _in a _planned demolition_ ...is proof random building fires can cause a steel frame building to collapse...and this somehow makes sense to them in the depths of their falling denials


figures a fucktard like Id-Eots would miss the point


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



have you ever listened to how people phrased things in the early 60s ?
 college students  off on Holiday's sounds just like something they would say.. by golly


----------



## Liability (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Bull fucking shit.

They might have said it like that in England.  But not here.

And that is simply not the way folks generally spoke in the USA in the '60s, particularly Americans working in the PENTAGON.


----------



## Fizz (Dec 18, 2009)

and what does this have to do with the phone calls?


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Not where I grew up. Where did you say you grew up at?


----------



## Dante (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> the claim was the call was made from the in house phone the only call made from the planes phone.. but then it came out there were no phones on this plane



you're a fucking idiot and anybody who debates this shit with you is a dufus.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Wtf?  The link points out battleships were sunk by planes only long before pearl harbor. You're a fucking psycho.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

Fizz said:


> and what does this have to do with the phone calls?



You're the stupid **** that claimed no planes had ever sunk a battleship before Pearl Harbor.  It had to burn ten times worse it was me that proved...once again....you don't know what in the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





Just when it looks like you can't reach a new level of stupidity you shock us all and manage to dig a little deeper.  You ignorant ****.  The Pentagon is one of the largest office buildings in the world with..........it doesn't matter.  You claimed ON was bullshit because of that one little fucking phrase.  You got bitch slapped.  Live with it.


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 18, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Doesn't matter.  The **** claimed ON was fake and then claimed it was a conspiracy that the documents were actually planted!  All because of that stupid phrase!  Then you try to cover for him by telling more falsehoods.  Nobody knows where you grew up because you haven't even reached puberty yet.


----------



## Trojan (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned



Your statement is the definition on what is called an appeal to authority -- look it up

'an experts (scholar) says so, therefore it must be true'


----------



## candycorn (Dec 18, 2009)

Liability said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



ID-EOTS....VERY NICE!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are too fucking stupid, like most troofer morons, to understand it was a fucking JOKE
like YOU

but in that part if does say it wasnt a realistic TEST you dumbfuck


----------



## eots (Dec 18, 2009)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned
> ...



sorry you poor deluded man but recognizing the expertise and knowledge of a scholar is not appeal to authority believing president Bush and his ludicrous account of 9/11 is appeal to authority


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 18, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


do you have any clue how fucking STUPID what you said is?


----------



## CurveLight (Dec 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




ROTFL!!  You guys are fucking beyond pathetic!  When you get pwned you claim it was only a "joke!"  Lol!!  Then your dumbass doesn't even know how to read an article!  The part you highlighted was talking only about the Osterfried you dumb ****.  You ignored the other ships that were sunk.  What's even worse?  They confirm all ships were literally sunk but you say it wasn't a "real" test! ROTFL!  Holy shit I can't believe how much time I've wasted on you pathetic losers!


----------



## Trojan (Dec 19, 2009)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



At Pearl Harbor four American battleships were sunk at anchor in an air attack.  No American battleship had previosly been sunk by air attack, after that date, no American battleship was ever sunk again by air attack.


----------



## Trojan (Dec 19, 2009)

eots said:


> Trojan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



appeal to authority - definition and example of appeal to authority - logical fallacies



> "Another common fallacy is the appeal to authority, which consists of arguing a point by invoking the opinion of an expert.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 19, 2009)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


first off, bringing it up was the joke(like you)
but, your example was not a real event, it was a TEST
the battle ships were nothing but target practice in that test
that is not a REAL LIFE example
you are just too fucking moronic to begin to understand


----------

