# WT7: Silverstein vs the Official Gov't Report



## KevinWestern (Feb 28, 2014)

I've explored a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories and have found many to be silly and simply untrue (when you look at all sides of the argument).

However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:

1.) Why did Larry Silverstein basically say flat out that he made the decision to "pull" or demolish the building:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA]Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7 - YouTube[/ame]

When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone help me with this? Need to hear from the skeptics.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 28, 2014)

And secondly, if building 7 was brought down manually by the Fire Department how did they manage to get the explosives set, etc so quickly? It's my understanding that controlled demolitions take at least of few days of planning/prepping.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 28, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> I've explored a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories and have found many to be silly and simply untrue (when you look at all sides of the argument).
> 
> However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:
> 
> ...



You misconstrue. He neither ordered nor had the authority to demolish the building and the Fire Commish, to whom Silverstein was speaking, also lacked that authority. Their conversation was about pulling the firefighters to minimize the loss of life as there wasn't enough water pressure with which to fight the fire.
A rich and powerful gang of insurers paid out a ton of cash in part because they could not make a case that anyone other than the 9/11 attackers were responsible for the losses that day. I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 12, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > I've explored a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories and have found many to be silly and simply untrue (when you look at all sides of the argument).
> ...




  [MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] - Listen, I'm not here to say the government was behind the attacks, etc, and agree that the "pull" order could have meant a number of things. Moving on..

WTC 7 had a bit of damage on its south end from towers 1 & 2, but when it collapsed it did not tip to that side (as one would suspect). Instead, it fell straight down. Firefighters were telling people to back away (there are video records of this) because the building "was about to come down". If fire alone bringing down a modern skyscraper is an extremely unlikely event that has never happened before in human history prior to 9/11, how in God's name were the firefighters - ie not building engineers - so confident and accurate in predicting the collapse? These are just honest questions I'm asking. 

When it comes to unprecedented events (like fire collapsing a skyscraper) I give the explanation provided by the 9/11 report on towers 1 & 2 the benefit of the doubt because it's ALSO an unprecedented event to get hit directly by a jetliner. But building 7? No plane hit that building. It was 3 football fields away from the towers that were struck. It fell straight down. 

It's just a little bit suspect. Please don't insult me with the trolling comment.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 12, 2014)

Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse:  Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History


----------



## Freewill (Mar 12, 2014)

Here is an article from the same site that addresses the "pull it" statement.

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


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 12, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse:  Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History



Thanks, I&#8217;ve actually seen this before. All it does is assert that there were some things that never happened before with WTC 7 and therefore we are asked to accept the official report. Do you have anything that dives into the collapse itself more deeply? 

WTC 7 had 47 giant steel beams that ran up and down the center of the building. Structural damage was only on the south end, and although we have many example of partial collapses due to fire (when speaking of steel skyscrapers) I don&#8217;t know of any TOTAL building collapses to compare this with. Straight down!

*80 perimeter columns and 24 core columns all gave way at the exact same time due to fire? *6 seconds. Do you have something that explains this off?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Had you posted legit doubts about WTC7's collapse there would have been no insult but your opening salvo ("Silverstein basically say flat out that he made the decision to "pull" or demolish the building") was not just suspect, it was clearly intended to appeal to a certain type of CT.
I call that trolling and if you don't like it....


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 12, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Disagree. My post was not inflammatory, didn't call people names, and was simply asking a question that I was fully prepared to discuss respectfully. That's not the definition of "trolling", which is why I'm correcting you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 12, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse:  Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History
> ...



dont listen to anything freewill says Kevin.Freewill is a disinformation agent troll who makes up lies about the JFK assassination.He goes around  trolling these boards defending the lies of the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin ignoring the facts there were multiple shooters with multiple bullets photographed that day that could not be traced back to oswalds rifle.ignoring that all the dallas docttos said the back of the head wound was an EXIT wound,ignoring that many witnesses said they saw a gunman behind the picket fence firing a rifle,ignoring that the secret service committed treason that day violating protocals,ignoring the warren commission members should have been jailed for committing the crime of altering witness testimonys.

so you should be much more careful in who you listen to around here.say it is just like him as your finding out.

to find out the truth about 9/11,what you REALLY need to do is read David Ray Griffins book Debunking the 9/11 Debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X[/ame]


His book will answer your question and refutes  that propaganda link of freewills.

His book debunks that link and the lies of freewill here.Griffin in his book talks about demolition EXPERTS that have said the three buildings coud not have toppled down like they did unless explosives were planted.

Freewill and others when cornered with this fact have no answers for this fact and always change the subject which is bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup trolls like him cant get around. First,it was NOT hit by an airliner so there is no logical explanation for its collapse

2nd-there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 that had FAR MORE SERIOUS FIRES AND FAR MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE DONE TO THEM THAN BLD 7 yet "they" did not collapse.a fact none of these trolls like freewill ever have an answer for.

3rd-the twin towers and bld 7 were the only buildings that collapsed that day,they were all owned by Larry silverstein and they were the ONLY ones that collapsed. thats being quite a coincidence theorist to swallow that coincidence.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 12, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse:  Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History
> ...



You sure do know of other buildings that more or less collapsed straight down, WTC 1and2.  How many other buildings do you know of that have collapsed?  I doubt many.

Any way here are some pictures and a video of a site that should not have an axe to grind.  Note how intense the fires were:  Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire | Mail Online

Also the link I provided you made this statement:  To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.

Which is not falling into its footprint. So I am not sure you looked at the evidence that was in the link.

Bottom line to me is, we know it was on fire, we know fire weakens steel, we know people could not have gone in and placed charges, and we know the result.  Why exactly it fell as it did we may never know we just know it did.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 12, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



*2nd-there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 that had FAR MORE SERIOUS FIRES AND FAR MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE DONE TO THEM THAN BLD 7 yet "they" did not collapse.a fact none of these trolls like freewill ever have an answer for.*

Prove this with a link. There were other building severly damaged and didn't fall, but WTC 7 is the only one I know of that burned for 7 hours then collapsed.  Who in their right mind would know to have the charges ready to plant and have the people willing to go into a burning building to set the charges.  Do any of the demolition experts you say this is impossible explain why it takes them weeks to do what apparently someone did in less then 7 hours to a burning building?  Does it even make sense to you?  Apprently it does not have to make sense.  OR on the other side if the charges were already placed then how would the person "pulling" the building know he could wait 7 hours and the charges would still ignite?  Again, does that make sense to you?

I wait for your link to the evidence.  Just that one don't flood a thread with a bunch of crap.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 12, 2014)

KevinWestern

Have you noticed something about 9/11nutbag?  I didn't really say anything or offer an opinion.  You asked for links and I provided what I think are good links.  But that doesn't stop 9/11nutbag from telling you I dispense bad information.  See that is what they do, they attack without provocation and without reason.  

Think for yourself is what I say.  Look at the pictures of WTC 7 on fire, ask yourself if you would go into that building and set explosive charges.  Ask yourself if you would know enough to be able to prior set the charges so the building collapses due to the charges and it just happens to line up with were the fires ranged for 7 hours.  How would you accomplish such a feat?  I am not telling you that there are not people who could not have done both, I am saying look and make up your own mind.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 12, 2014)

Instead of waiting for 9/11nutbag let's read about what some real demolition experts have to say: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac

Lots of good stuff and great links, enjoy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2014)

the paid  trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 14, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> the paid  trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.



I asked for something simple, to most people.  Provide your evidence of other building burning as did WTC 7.  Waiting...................


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 14, 2014)

Freewill said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the paid  trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.
> ...



Hello, sorry I've been spotty with the thread. According to the NIST report (I believe), fire in WTC7 would only burn for about 20-30 minutes at a single spot and progress onward to a different location. The building had *pockets *of fire that would move; the entire structure was NOT engulfed by any means. Was this sort of a fire powerful enough to take down this massive building? 

Secondly, what do you think about the BBC report speaking of the collapse 20 minutes prior to it happening. They chalked the error up to "confusion". I however - being an inquisitive person - would think it's extremely strange that someone was able to accurately predict an event that has NEVER occurred before (a building being brought down by fire alone). Don't you find that just a bit odd?

Again, not jumping to conclusions, just pointing out oddities.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


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



Yes, one can question much of what occurred on 9/11 but the bottom line remains that unless you believe Silverstein and the fire commish pre-planted explosives (of which there is no evidence) in WTC7 or rushed in to do so after the place was on fire, you will eventually come to the conclusion that the NIST findings, as imperfect as they may be, are about as close to factual as we are likely ever to get. The rest is just mental masturbation. Enjoy.


----------



## Rockland (Mar 14, 2014)

Freewill said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the paid  trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.
> ...



But 9/11 Whackjob *is* quite simple, to most people.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2014)




----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 14, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:
> 
> 1.) Why did Larry Silverstein basically say flat out that he made the decision to "pull" or demolish the building:




haha

now you did it, now all the illiterate grammar retards are going to come out of the wood work and say it does not mean destroy the building LMAO




.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 15, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Instead of waiting for 9/11nutbag let's read about what some real demolition experts have to say: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac
> 
> Lots of good stuff and great links, enjoy.



ok lets hear what "real" demolition experts have to say

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEsjiR89PpY]FMR. CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC., EXPLOSIVES TECH SPEAKS ON 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Freewill (Mar 15, 2014)

Career Occupational Profile for :
Explosive Technician

Explosive Technician is very similar to another occupation for which we have a full profile. Check out our full profile for: 
Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, Blasters 

Overview

Place and detonate explosives to demolish structures or to loosen, remove, or displace earth, rock, or other materials. May perform specialized handling, storage, and accounting procedures. Includes seismograph shooters.

3 years as a technician makes him an expert?  What experience does he have with a building burning for 7 hours unabated?  Basically for 3 years he carried explosives so engineers could set them.  Does not mean he didn't become knowledgeable but certainly does not make him an expert.  He really isn't an expert and wasn't in NYC like the demolition experts that testify that it was not a controlled explosion.  Look at the way the building fell in the video, does it look like it fell in its' own footprint?

Retired?  See that is how they lie.  He said he was retired as if he spent 30 years as a technician, but in reality it was only 3.

charges must be precisely set but only 30 percent needed.  And they were precisely set in a burning building???  Really???

Here is and article on some of the problems in his story or the story as reported: 

Major Problems with Tom Sullivan?s AE911Truth ?Interview? | American Everyman


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 15, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Career Occupational Profile for :
> Explosive Technician
> 
> Explosive Technician is very similar to another occupation for which we have a full profile. Check out our full profile for:
> ...



And so the legit question isn't 9/11 related at all but rather the motivation behind the CTs. What drives them to lie for the camera and what drives the KooKoomojos of the world to lap up the lies like they were breastfeeding?


----------



## Freewill (Mar 15, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Career Occupational Profile for :
> ...



15 minutes of fame.

Nothing productive to do.

They invariably wrote a book or get paid.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 15, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


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



No offense intended but I think you are pretending.  Either that or you don't really wish to read what is posted. Copyright laws prevent the posting of entire articles you have to go read them.  You make statements such as "had pockets" when in fact video was provided showing you that it wasn't just pockets.  That said, if you are going to make a claim at least back it up.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of waiting for 9/11nutbag let's read about what some real demolition experts have to say: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac
> ...



agents rat in the ass,dawgshit, and  freewill  gets their asses handed to them on a platter from you.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 15, 2014)

More ppl to add to the kook list.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:
> ...



yep,the agents have come out of the woodwork and their handlers sent them here immediately to go into their meltdown modes they always go into.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of waiting for 9/11nutbag let's read about what some real demolition experts have to say: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac
> ...



not only does this video of yours  hand their asses to them on a platter so dothese two as well.




they never have anything but pathetic ramblings when confronted with these videos.

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


----------



## Rockland (Mar 15, 2014)

Two nut-filled craps in a row from Whackjob.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



as evidence that the handlers of G.T and rat in the ass have all ready come back recently today to start slinging shit in defeat.waits for rest to join.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 15, 2014)

Well K-Western, it's your moment of truth. 
Will you sink into the silly CT abyss with this board's "special people" (KooKoomojo, 9/11HandJob) or step up to reality with the norms? It's your choice. 
Enjoy.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 15, 2014)

Steel buildings don't just fall down in free fall fashion.

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Freewill (Mar 15, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Steel buildings don't just fall down in free fall fashion.
> 
> Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk



Are you a structural or civil engineer?

BTW wtc1, 2 and 7 didn't freefall.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of waiting for 9/11nutbag let's read about what some real demolition experts have to say: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac
> ...





LOL he placed the charges where he was told to place them by the guys who were the experts....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2014)

I see the nut jobs are still at it and that 911shitforbrains still hasn't read anything that didn't agree with what he wants to be true....


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 16, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Well K-Western, it's your moment of truth.
> Will you sink into the silly CT abyss with this board's "special people" (KooKoomojo, 9/11HandJob) or step up to reality with the norms? It's your choice.
> Enjoy.



Sorry haven't been paying attention to much to the thread that I started (lol). After a few days of spotty research/interest on the subject, I must say that there are some compelling points being made on *both sides*. However, the ONE thing that remains unexplained (in my opinion) is *how in the could the explosives be "set" without anyone noticing*. I don't think it's reasonable to think all the explosives were planted the day of the collapse, and this remains as my "make or break" argument. If this can't be explained, I don't think I can accept the demolition argument. 

To my knowledge there weren't any witnesses who reported drilling/loud noises in the weeks leading up to 9/11 (and there were a SHIT-TON of people working in this building), but perhaps I'm wrong?

Anyways, until someone can provide evidence of this occurring, or some compelling explanation as to why no one heard the explosives being set, I'mma have to side with the people who believe in the natural collapse of the building. That's my position as of now, but like I said I'm an open minded person open for debate.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 16, 2014)

someone post a vid of a steel structured building like WTC 7 in freefall prior to 9/11. I'll wait.  Document ANY steel framed building collapsing in on itself in freefall fashion.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 17, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




yeh and he knows far more than any debunker that has ever posted on any board!

He even knows about thermate cutter charges.  Debunkers and OSHuggers are and will for ever remain clueless!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 17, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Well K-Western, it's your moment of truth.
> ...



Dont need prep if you dont mind spending the extra money, only need rubber bands to hold charges on, and thermate cutters are nearly silent, and its a federal offense to look in other peoples deliveries, and several people had the skin blown off parts of their body from explosions that no one heard according to you.

ok....next salvo of dumb assed noob questions.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 17, 2014)

Shit KooKoo ... give it up. Even the OP abandoned his thread as TSTC (that's Too Stupid To Continue).


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 17, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Steel buildings don't just fall down in free fall fashion.
> ...




Are you a structural engineer?  How about demolitions expert?

yes those buildings did freefall, and the National Institute of Standards and Technologies admitted it.

So whats your conspiracy theory?  That they did not?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 17, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Shit KooKoo ... give it up. Even the OP abandoned his thread as TSTC (that's Too Stupid To Continue).




what no loony illiterates are going to tell us that pull it means pull the men out?  I'm feeling particularly sadistic tonite.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 17, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



No, I am not an engineer that is why I don't make claims and then not back them up.  Here is what the NIST had to say on the subject:

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

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
&#8226;Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
&#8226;Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
&#8226;Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


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

Here is an article on the subject: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Here is a question back at you.  What is the significance of free fall?


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 17, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Dont need prep if you dont mind spending the extra money, only need rubber bands to hold charges on, and thermate cutters are nearly silent, and its a federal offense to look in other peoples deliveries, and several people had the skin blown off parts of their body from explosions that no one heard according to you.
> 
> ok....next salvo of dumb assed noob questions.



KokomoJojo, please quote me where I said no one heard any explosions. I don't recall ever making that statement (but please enlighten me if I am incorrect). If a building demolition is such a simple process, why do normal takedowns require weeks of on-site prep with heavy duty hammering/noise/etc? Why wouldn't everyone just simply rubber band some sh$t together and call it a day? 

As I mentioned, I'm open to hearing both sides of the argument; there's absolutely no need to be hostile. I started the thread for pete's sake.


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 17, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Shit KooKoo ... give it up. Even the OP abandoned his thread as TSTC (that's Too Stupid To Continue).



Well not quite an abandonment, just arrived at a logical "roadbloack". I'm still open for explanations.

The roadblock again was how in the world was the building "prepped" with no one noticing.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 17, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse:  Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History
> ...



Yes, it was explained. WTC7 had a cantilever design because of a power substation that is was built over. Essentially a cantilever is like a seesaw. There is a single support and the weight at one end is offset by the weight at the other. 

What transpired is that the heat from the fires expanded one of the steel beams sufficiently to dislodge it from being directly over it's single support. Once it was out of position the weight and gravity took over. Losing that single support was like setting off dominoes. The remaining supports could not take the added strain and collapsed.

There is a detailed technical analysis but what I have provided is a simplistic synopsis of what happened. If you would like me to help you understand this more fully I am certainly willing to do so with the proviso that there was no conspiracy here. WTC7 caught fire. The firefighters couldn't put out the fire without any supply of water. They made a safety call to allow the fire to burn itself out. The building design was such that the architects/engineers never anticipated an uncontrolled fire for that period of time.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 17, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Shit KooKoo ... give it up. Even the OP abandoned his thread as TSTC (that's Too Stupid To Continue).
> ...



And I suspect you knew that when you posted the OP. 
So again I ask: what was your purpose in doing so?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2014)

The building was never prepped. There was no controlled demolition. There is zero proof of any controlled demolition. WTC7 fell because a 110 story building fell outside its own footprint and landed on it. It had uncontrolled fires burning for 7 hours or so and the steel finally gave up......

Simple facts.......


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 17, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> And I suspect you knew that when you posted the OP.
> So again I ask: what was your purpose in doing so?



Oh yea? Why is that SAYIT? 

Didn't realize finding out new data about a topic and shifting your viewpoint on it throughout a week period was a "wild" sort of scenario, lol.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2014)

Ever seen what happens when a building is pulled?

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

That's what pull it means...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 17, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > And I suspect you knew that when you posted the OP.
> ...



I said nothing of a wild scenario. I am hoping to learn something about the CT mind. You said you know plenty about the WTC building collapses yet you came here seeking "new data" about Silverstein's conversation with the fire commish and how his "pull it" comment impacted on WTC7. Had you spent 10 minutes researching you would have found that "pull it" is not a demo term and that, as you now admit, you know there was no controlled demo. So how about answering the question?


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 17, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I didn't really dive too much into the collapse portion of 9/11. I've been interested in theories of some of the odd things that occurred on that day (like the fact many warplanes were being involved in a drill of the same exact scenario occurring) however when it came to the actual demo of the building I honestly didn't look too deep into it until beginning this thread.

Through information I've learned (partially sparked from some of the responses) I answered the question I presented originally and arrived at a conclusion different to what I expected.

I mean, what exactly are you trying to get out of me SAYIT with all this nonsense badgering? I'm trying to be open and honest. You're starting to annoy me.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 17, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...






tha paid shills like gomer ollie and freewill ignore what demolition experts and architiects and enginners say,they worship only what their government institutions and the lamestream media tell them to be gospel truth.


what no loony illiterates are going to tell us that pull it means pull the men out? I'm feeling particularly sadistic tonite. 
__________________
yeah the men are all of a suddenly referred to as IT aftwer silverstein tried to clarify what he was saying by pull it.comedy gold.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2014)

Please ignore any responses from 911shitforbrains, he is so afraid to debate most of the people who disagree with his wild theories that he claims to have us all on ignore, but can't help commenting.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 17, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



He has been caught lying as always.all you got to do is time how long it takes which is under 12 seconds and that equals free fall speed.man his handlers pay him well for his ass beatings he gets here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 17, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Shit KooKoo ... give it up. Even the OP abandoned his thread as TSTC (that's Too Stupid To Continue).
> ...





It was prepped months in advance with nobody noticing because they had many signs saying construction,keep out.they used service elevaters that the employees did not have access to.
 the paid trolls like gomer ollie,say it,and freewill ignore that fact that you go into a construction area with heavy construction going on,you get arrested.duh.they ignore that saying thats unsubstaniated  theories.

you are indeed mistaken that they never heard any construction going on.as you will hear in these two short vidoes below ,there were MANY very unusual evacuations that were going on in the prior months to 9/11 that workers said were unprecedented in the entire time they had worked there,many working there for over 20 years or so.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB2fHqnqZaE&list=PL6E89DA9559B16037]Unusual activities at the world trade center before 911 - YouTube[/ame]



as i said before,bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup these trolls say it,freewill,and gomer ollie cant get around and never have an answer for.because other buildings in the area much closer to the towers than bld 7 had FAR MORE SEVERE DAMAGE done to them and FAR MORE SEVERE FIRES that bld 7 yet they did not collapse. 

many witnesses ALSO as well heard EXPLOSIONS going on in the basements BEFORE the planes struck.you want to learn the truth,you'll never learn it if you listen to anything paid  trolls say it,gomer ollie,and freewill come on here and post.the explosions that Jennings was referring to happened earlier in the morning before the towers collapsed,he wasnt talking about the afternoon explosions at 5.20 pm when it caved in completely.

one of the witnesses heard explosions going on the basement in bld 7 BEFORE the planes struck the towers;.He died in a hospital just shortly before NIST did their findings.How conveinent for NIST that he died.they killed him because he would have shreadded to pieces the lies of the NIST report had he been there to testify.

If you want to hear the testimonys of survivors that said they heard construction going on that they found highly unusual and thought was very strange,listen to the  one below called 9/11 mysteries.Its almost two hours long but you will hear them yourselves talk about it.

Here are two videos of suvivors saying they heard explosions going off in the basements BEFORE the planes struck.the deniars always live in denial about this saying they were mistaken and crap like that.



here below,you get to hear Barry Jennings,the man who was in bld 7 who talked about hearing explosions in building 7-the crux of the 9/11 commison report these trolls cant get around,talk about hearing explosions in the basement of bld 7 BEFORE the twin towers fell down.mistimed explosions obviously.



oh and I know you got an hour and a half to spare so watch this video 9/11 mysteries.It answers all your questions showing there indeed were suvivors that heard very strange unual stuff going on in the prior weeks to 9/11 that they thought were really bizaree at the time.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 17, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2014)

I see that shitforbrains is repeating the same stuff that has been debunked so very many times before,,,,New video though i hadn't seen the one where the girl says it* looks like* and *I believe* a bomb went off in the lobby.....

We know why the lobby looked like that the explosions came down the elevator shafts.....

And please review the seismographs of that morning one more time for us? That's right not one explosion registered before the planes hit...........And not one explosion before bldg7 fell.

Simple fact just tears complicated theories apart every time....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 17, 2014)

dawgshit and gomers handlers are really getting deperate,the way they sent them here so quickly after my posts to troll.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 17, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> dawgshit and gomers handlers are really getting deperate,the way they sent them here so quickly after my posts to troll.





handjob at the home..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Ever seen what happens when a building is pulled?
> 
> WTC 9/11 building 6 pull it - YouTube
> 
> That's what pull it means...



Shoot it is another demolition term.  (among several others) 

Both pull it and shoot it mean destroy the building, not literally pull the damn thing with cables, though they do pull small buildings down with cables, or just run through them with a bulldozer.

So if someone says they decided to shoot it...and we watched the building collapse, does that mean they had a firing squad kill it or some stoopid shit like that?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> The building was never prepped. There was no controlled demolition. There is zero proof of any controlled demolition. WTC7 fell because a 110 story building fell outside its own footprint and landed on it. It had uncontrolled fires burning for 7 hours or so and the steel finally gave up......
> 
> Simple facts.......




what makes you think buildings have to be prepped?  they dont.

yeh there is proof, 7 freefell, NIST could not duplicate the real building in their fea model proving freefall cannot occur from fire. lol


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> I see that shitforbrains is repeating the same stuff that has been debunked so very many times before,,,,New video though i hadn't seen the one where the girl says it* looks like* and *I believe* a bomb went off in the lobby.....
> 
> We know why the lobby looked like that the explosions came down the elevator shafts.....
> 
> ...




better stick to your day job, jet fuel does not explode DUH!!!!


----------



## Rockland (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> loony illiterates



Pot.  Kettle.  Black.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ever seen what happens when a building is pulled?
> ...



Pull is very specific in it's meaning when you are talking demolition,,,but you go ahead and spin it in your head any way you care..It's alright, we understand....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The building was never prepped. There was no controlled demolition. There is zero proof of any controlled demolition. WTC7 fell because a 110 story building fell outside its own footprint and landed on it. It had uncontrolled fires burning for 7 hours or so and the steel finally gave up......
> ...



Now the facts:
The facade of wtc7 did fall at freefall for just over 2 seconds. Because there was nothing left behind it to hold it up. Honestly, why do truther videos leave out the first 9 seconds of the wtc7 collapse? Because that proves the building did not fall anywhere near free fall, just the facade...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I see that shitforbrains is repeating the same stuff that has been debunked so very many times before,,,,New video though i hadn't seen the one where the girl says it* looks like* and *I believe* a bomb went off in the lobby.....
> ...



Really? Those weren't explosions? Please o wise one tell us exactly what it was or what do you call any type of fuel that is ignited all at one time....Sure does look like an explosion. We used 55 gallon drums of Diesel fuel and a thermite grenade to simulate nuclear explosions in the military....That sure as hell looked like real explosions...So what do you call it?
Or are you still going with a bomb in the lobby?


----------



## Freewill (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I see that shitforbrains is repeating the same stuff that has been debunked so very many times before,,,,New video though i hadn't seen the one where the girl says it* looks like* and *I believe* a bomb went off in the lobby.....
> ...



My guess is that you don't know how a diesel engine works.  BTW jet fuel and diesel fuel are the same in case you didn't know.


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> It was prepped months in advance with nobody noticing because they had many signs saying construction,keep out.they used service elevaters that the employees did not have access to.
> the paid trolls like gomer ollie,say it,and freewill ignore that fact that you go into a construction area with heavy construction going on,you get arrested.duh.they ignore that saying thats unsubstaniated  theories.



Well, all this talk sparked my interest so I bought two books -
_
9/11 Ten Years Later by David Ray Griffin 
9/11 Commission Report_

Going to read both and maybe report back later. The only logical thing I can do at this point. Cheers dudes!


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ever seen what happens when a building is pulled?
> ...


false shoot means to ignite the explosives....there were none used on wtc7 .
why are you back ?did the power get turned back on in your trailer ?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Dont need prep if you dont mind spending the extra money, only need rubber bands to hold charges on, and thermate cutters are nearly silent, and its a federal offense to look in other peoples deliveries, and several people had the skin blown off parts of their body from explosions that no one heard according to you.
> ...


Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

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

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

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

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

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

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

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

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

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

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

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > It was prepped months in advance with nobody noticing because they had many signs saying construction,keep out.they used service elevaters that the employees did not have access to.
> ...



you got one more you need to read.Debunking the 9/11 debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory. yeah first read the 9/11 commission report,then Griffins book,then this book of griffins as well which shreads to pieces the lies of the 9/11 commission report and popular mechanics.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=as_li_wdgt_ex?&linkCode=wey&tag=debunthedebun-20[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

David Ray Griffin
en.wikipedia.org
David Ray Griffin is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought. Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.

can you say completely bias and totally lacking the required knowledge base....I knew you could...


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

daws101 said:


> David Ray Griffin
> en.wikipedia.org
> David Ray Griffin is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought. Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.
> 
> can you say completely bias and totally lacking the required knowledge base....I knew you could...



Hey I'm going to read both his book and the 9/11 commission report, don't understand what you're all excited about. I'm sure David Ray Griffin is perfectly capable of doing research, and if he presents something compelling I'll take note. 

Did you read the book? If no, then don't knock it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

And then when you have your head full of spin and guesswork, we'll tell you the real truths again......


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> And then when you have your head full of spin and guesswork, we'll tell you the real truths again......



Sounds good Ollie. Are you my official 9/11 truther?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > David Ray Griffin
> ...


read all his other works of fiction does that count?


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Sorry Daws, are you a David Ray Griffin expert? Have you read the book? Have you read any of his books? 

Did you answer yes to any of these questions?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And then when you have your head full of spin and guesswork, we'll tell you the real truths again......
> ...



No i tell the real truth with real facts and common sense to back it up.


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yes, I know. People who tell the truth are "truthers" and you just told me that you told the truth when it comes to 9/11, thus making you a 9/11 truther.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...


as I said before I read all his other works of fiction...do you need glasses..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > David Ray Griffin
> ...



Do you have an engineering background?

Because if you don't you might not understand all of the concepts in the official 9/11 documents. They are dealing with structures, loadings, factors of safety, etc. For a layman with no engineering background the reports don't do a very good job of explaining these concepts and how they applied.

A great deal of the conspiracy theories around 9/11 are based upon either the inability of the people postulating them to comprehend these engineering concepts or just misunderstanding what is being stated. And before you ask, yes I do have an engineering background which is why I am asking the question.

Before you begin reading the CT books you would be better served by asking all of your questions about the 9/11 reports before going any further. Only after you have a good understanding would I suggest that you delve into the CT books. Yes, they ask some legitimate questions that are outside the scope of the actual engineering issues involved. But from an engineering perspective they are all speculative and based upon a profound lack of knowledge and comprehension. 

An example is the allegation of the use of "thermite" in the CT books. The entire island of Manhatten contains what could be misclassified as "thermite residue". This is because as one of the oldest and earliest industrialized parts of the nation it has chemical residues from old iron boilers that were coal fired, residue from the steel welding that was used to construct the skyscrapers, aluminium residue from garbage that was burned prior to EPA regulations and a host of other elements. It is possible to find what could be classified as "thermite" from the dirt on street corners in Manhatten because this stuff doesn't "dissolve". It is still there. 

The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort. 

So, by all means read the CT books. But understand that there is a perfectly valid and sound engineering explanation for all of the structural failures without any need for any explosives, thermite, stealth demolition teams or other CT allegations.


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I might, need to check.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.
> 
> So, by all means read the CT books. But understand that there is a perfectly valid and sound engineering explanation for all of the structural failures without any need for any explosives, thermite, stealth demolition teams or other CT allegations.



really?   what was all that glowing stuff that flowed like a waterfall then?  lead? silver, aluminum? silver


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Do you have an engineering background?
> 
> Because if you don't you might not understand all of the concepts in the official 9/11 documents. They are dealing with structures, loadings, factors of safety, etc. For a layman with no engineering background the reports don't do a very good job of explaining these concepts and how they applied.
> 
> ...



To be absolutely honest, the bulk of my interest in the 9/11 theories lie beyond the implosion of the buildings themselves. I&#8217;m not an engineer, and after doing a bit of research, listening to some debates, I&#8217;m siding currently with the natural collapse theory (as I stated earlier). I really can&#8217;t understand all that stuff &#8211; given my lack of experience &#8211; and certainly cannot trust random youtube videos with &#8220;explanations&#8221; as to why things occurred the way it did. 

To be honest, I&#8217;m more interested in some of the non-collapse related CT about 9/11 such as the NORAD exercise taking place on the same day, the hijackers funding coming from Saudi Royalty, the fact that the Bush family had close ties with the Bin Ladens, the insider trading, the talk to invade Iraq (which had no connection) within days of the attack, the fact they couldn&#8217;t find Bin Laden for 10 years, and when they did he was in a multi-million dollar fortress in some Pakistani Suburb, the fact a ridiculous amount of seals connected with the raid died under mysterious/tragic circumstances, etc. 

The implosion thing is &#8211; honestly &#8211; not my main focus of interest. I believe hijackers flew planes into the towers, pentagon (not a "missile"/hologram guy), and that the towers were likely brought down as a direct result of this. However I believe that some trickery was afoot. 

Anyways..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have an engineering background?
> ...



Then you are truly fucked.

thats why


99% of everything dabunkers do is bunk.  of course you gotta be a sharp cookie to finger it all out as you are about to see


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



no you dont, you talk shit like every other OShugger out here


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



_Currently_.

I'm just saying I'm not an engineer, so I'm going to have to see what the _consensus _of engineers say on the subject..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have an engineering background?
> ...



Thanks. Some of those questions certainly do deserve answers. Allowing the bin laden family to leave while all other aircraft were grounded immediately following 9/11 strikes me as requiring a legitimate investigation.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Pull
*PULL, *_verb transitive_  [Latin  vello.]
*1.* To draw; to draw towards one or to make an effort to draw. _pull_ differs from draw; we use draw when motion follows the effort, and _pull_ is used in the same sense; but we may also _pull_ forever without drawing or moving the thing. This distinction may not be universal. _pull_ is opposed to push.
Then he put forth his hand and took her and pulled her in to him into the ark. Genesis 8:9.
*2.* To pluck; to gather by drawing or forcing off or out; as, to _pull_ fruit; to _pull_ flax.
*3.* To tear; to rend; but in this sense followed by some qualifying word or phrase; as, to _pull_ in pieces; to _pull_ asunder or apart. To _pull_ in two, is to separate or tear by violence into two parts.
To _pull_ down, to demolish or to take in pieces by separating the parts; as, to _pull_ down a house.
*1.* To demolish; to subvert; to destroy.
In political affairs, as well as mechanical, it is easier to _pull_ down than to build up.
*2.* To bring down; to degrade; to humble.
To raise the wretched and _pull_ down the proud.
*PULL* off, to separate by pulling; to pluck; also, to take off without force; as, to _pull_ off a coat or hat.
To _pull_ out, to draw out; to extract.
To _pull_ up, to pluck up; to tear up by the roots; hence, to extirpate; to eradicate; to destroy.
*PULL*, _noun_  The act of pulling or drawing with force; an effort to move by drawing towards one.
*1.* A contest; a struggle.
*2.* Pluck; violence suffered.

~Websters


I suppose they are not only illiterate but in addition do not know how to read a dictionary either.

.... and the loony toons dablunder argument will go like this "but they didnt say pull down with explosives"..... or they will drop the conjuction or insert subjects / objects that are not there.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.
> ...



What are planes made from? How many tons of aluminum were melted by those raging fires? How many tons of magnesium was set alight by those raging fires? Do you know what temperature magnesium burns at?


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Thanks. Some of those questions certainly do deserve answers. Allowing the bin laden family to leave while all other aircraft were grounded immediately following 9/11 strikes me as requiring a legitimate investigation.



Yea, I think there's a lot of very strange things that occurred on that day that sparked the interest of a lot of rational, logical people. 3,000 Americans died and the Bin Laden family is getting a safe trip back home when it was a Bin Laden that was responsible for the attack? I don't care if they have no direct connection with the son, they're staying and being interrogated!

Problem is there's so many outlandish theories (like the planes were holograms, or that a missile was fired into the pentagon) that I think the credibility of anyone questioning any part of the official story is diminished. The demolition theory is a little less outlandish, and I've heard some decent points that are brought up from time to time. The collapse of WTC 7 does look like a controlled demo, and it was ODD that reporters reported the building as collapsed 20 minutes prior to it happening. 

However, I realize there are a lot of intelligent people (likely the consensus of most engineers) that side with the natural collapse theory. 

Anyways..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...




ok so if you are not an engineer how do you know which engineer is correct, or how can you tell who is or is not an engineer out here?  I mean we all know that OS Huggers and dablunkers are "experts"!


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Pull



But even if the buildings did naturally collapse, that doesn't mean that 9/11 went down exactly as the story was told, right? I think there are a lot of interesting areas to dive into. 

9/11 is a literal goldmine of anomalies and strange occurrences.

The NORAD exercises? The fighter jets that would have been used to subdue the rogue planes were (strangely) in a planned simulation that was nearly identical to the actual activities occurring on that day. Coincidence? I don't know. What's the odds of that anyways? 

It's funny, the "exercise phenomena" occurs quite frequently. The day of the London Subway bombings the police were taking part in a bombing drill occurring in London subways. The day of the Boston Marathon Bombing the police were talking part in a similar drill involving a rogue person setting off a bomb in the Boston area. 

Strange stuff...


.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> What are planes made from? How many tons of aluminum were melted by those raging fires? How many tons of magnesium was set alight by those raging fires? Do you know what temperature magnesium burns at?



you have to contain aluminum to get it to glow, otherwise it just flows away like water while it is still SILVER.

I guess you arent real up on the facts?

Magnesium?  Good question!

You tell me!

How many tons did it take to do this?








they accidentally forgot to show you that on tv


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> ok so if you are not an engineer how do you know which engineer is correct, or how can you tell who is or is not an engineer out here?  I mean we all know that OS Huggers and dablunkers are "experts"!



I believe I used the word _consensus_. From all my research this week, it appears the consensus supports natural collapse.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > ok so if you are not an engineer how do you know which engineer is correct, or how can you tell who is or is not an engineer out here?  I mean we all know that OS Huggers and dablunkers are "experts"!
> ...




what consensus? not a consensus of facts LOL

If you enjoy dreaming the impossible dream go for it.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




yeh thats the latest from lunarville! 

Hate to tell ya but paint falls at freefall too when the walls its sticking to come down at freefall.  DUH!

9 seconds?

How long did it take for this one to freefall?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> I've explored a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories and have found many to be silly and simply untrue (when you look at all sides of the argument).
> 
> However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:
> 
> ...



LS's interp of "pull" is completely at odds: they pulled as many first responders out as they could to allow whatever would happen to the buildings.

But listen to LS then look stupid by LS.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...





Thats the understaement of the year.Gomer Ollie is a chickenshit coward.whenever he is caught trolling with videos that shoot down his bullshit he posts like my videos,the coward runs away and wont talk about the videos.Just like all 9/11 shills here,he would be laughed out of a debating hall in minutes if he acted the same way there hs does here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



agent dawgshit NEVER reads anything that has an opposing view to his bullshit.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > David Ray Griffin
> ...



The reason Dawgshit is going into meltdown mode is because he is afraid that after you read griffins book,you will become awake and realise you were brainwashed by the CIA controlled media all these years. like i did three years later 

He is afraid you will see the light of the 9/11 coverup commissions lies after reading Griffins book. its funny he is getting all bent out of shape going into meltdown mode when you said you were going to read griffins books when you even said you were going to look at the 9/11 commission report as well. a little strange and funny isnt it that he takes it so personal that your going to read griffins book as well as the 9/11 commission report?

whats funny is he is trying to discredit griffin acting like he is the ONLY well known person out there that thinks 9/11 was an inside job by saying Griffin is not qualified on what he says about it because of his job occupation. He neglects to mention that Griffin interviewed very many qualified people such as demolition experts,architects and engineers,people at the FAA,high ranking officers in the military,expert jet pilots,ect,ect. someone he is implying that Griffin came to all these conclusions all on his own.That he didnt interview scores of credible people like those mentioned.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



I'm sorry, i hadn't realized that you were already that far gone. You go on and play nice with the other children, and no running with sharp objects in your hand....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.
> ...



Probably lead. Check where that was flowing from and what was in that area of the building....It sort of explains itself.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Actually that is a fallacy. The FBI cleared each individual on that infamous flight and it did not take off until national airspace was cleared on the 13th. BTW did you know that one of UBL's nieces is an American citizen and she left on that flight.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



'yes you really are fucked if you side with the natural collapse theory.To do that,its like the jfk assassination,you have to ignore the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years as well as ignoring what what witnesses saw and heard,many of them being firefighters eperienced in the sounds of explosives.every junior high school kid learns at that age in science class,that those buildings should not have fallen straight down at freefall speed like they did in the same demolition way buildings do that have been demolitioned.that they fall down GRADUALLY over a period of time  due to fires and not withing 12 seconds.
so yeah,if you go with the natural collpase theory,you indeed will be truely fucked.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



OH please, Go ask anyone in the demo industry what Pull a building means.....

Then go back to your kindergarten class, I think their ready to play dodgeball.......


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. Some of those questions certainly do deserve answers. Allowing the bin laden family to leave while all other aircraft were grounded immediately following 9/11 strikes me as requiring a legitimate investigation.
> ...



the engineers you speak of that side with the natural collapse theory do so because they if they are brave and speak the truth like over a thousand architects and engineers have,then they lose contract work.the thousand or so that have come out and said they were brought down with demoitions,they put their jobs on the line by doing so.many professors around the country have lost their jobs for speaking out and telling the truth,same happens to them as well if they do the same.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Pull
> ...



Ever been in the military? They are either conducting training or dealing with a real world mission, there is no down time. Most every day you are training, preparing for training, or performing a real world mission. Now I don't know what scenario they were acting out that day. I know that I was once involved in a training scenario that had us and Germany fighting Canada and GB.....
The military is going to have exercises so that they will be ready when needed...Or would you rather they sit on their ass and drink coffee until it is time to do something ...

I hadn't heard of any such drill in Boston, that would not make sense as they knew they had a major event happening I would doubt they would schedule training the same day...But like I said I haven't heard of it, doesn't mean there wasn't one.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > What are planes made from? How many tons of aluminum were melted by those raging fires? How many tons of magnesium was set alight by those raging fires? Do you know what temperature magnesium burns at?
> ...



Show us what? And aluminum would only be silver if it was not mixed with a thousand contaminants. Rugs, linoleum, plastics, other metals, etc.............


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




Are you really comparing that to WTC7? Really? Show me the explosions on WTC7....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yep over a thousand......That's like 0.014 % of all the ones in the USA....


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Yep over a thousand......That's like 0.014 % of all the ones in the USA....



you dont mind posting the source of these "all" supposed engineers do you?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.
> ...


ahhh... kokodouche  IT WAS NOT THERMITE IF IT HAD been there would have been no way to cover it up...
last time I checked It would have taken several thousand pounds of it to take down the towers and wtc7...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




I asked you a specific question that applies to any demolition or your euphemism "collapse".    If you are incapable of giving us the correct answer thats fine.  (its the bold red one)


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



sure there was, the building fell on it. LMAO


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




No shit?

Specifically what contaminants are you referring to?  Plastic?  LOL


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


handjob wake up you're having that dream again....the one where your ravings mean something..


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Dude, just messing with ya. Lighten up.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


only when you masturbate like now...
in reality none was found...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



How about naming the landscape architects and sanitation engineers that lost contract work because they signed Dickie G's petition.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yep over a thousand......That's like 0.014 % of all the ones in the USA....
> ...



agent gomer ignores that all the others havent been brave enough like all the others are who were willing to risk their jobs to tell the truth,most americans are cowards,the others are too afraid to put their jobs on the line since they know they will get fired if they tell the truth as so many people have lost their jobs around the country for telling the truth.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 18, 2014)

"risk their jobs" 

Rimjob thinks employers actually check Dickie the G's petition to see if any of their employees signed the silly thing.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...




well definitely not off to a good start.

So far he fucked up fuel oil, it does not "explode"
fucked up freefall, its not determined the way he said 
fucked up the wtc 7 facade issue
and finally he thinks aluminum can mix with other stuff and glow yellow-white hot like steel or iron

nice source of total bullshit.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> "risk their jobs"
> 
> Rimjob thinks employers actually check Dickie the G's petition to see if any of their employees signed the silly thing.




just the ones who bid on government contracts.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yep over a thousand......That's like 0.014 % of all the ones in the USA....
> ...



Gee there must be a thousand right here in my county alone. I wonder how many thousands are in NYC? Architects, engineers, and Lord only knows who is counted in the A&E web site's over a thousand....I bet there's some real fine landscapers in there.......


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> *agent gomer *ignores that all the others havent been brave enough like all the others are who were willing to risk their jobs to tell the truth,most americans are cowards,the others are too afraid to put their jobs on the line since they know they will get fired if they tell the truth as so many people have lost their jobs around the country for telling the truth.



do they know he is a rat?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Yes numbnuts almost every truther video that shows the wtc7 coming down leaves out the collapse of the east penthouse which fell into the center of the building leaving nothing to hold up the facade which then fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds..... Of course it did there was nothing behind it....When you watch the entire video you can see this...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




yah real kool, but you are quoting numbers I would like to see how those numbers or who or what if anything are attached to them.

Not that I dont trust everything you say.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




and you think that has some significant value how exactly?

I mean since that is how virtually ALL in the footprint demolitions are done.  Nothing new there








yup nothing holding up the facade in this demolition either.


.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



You tell me what was mixed in with it. Ashes from a million different things, but as i tried to get you to look for yourself so that you might learn something, the molten spill that truthers normally point at was right where the building had been reinforced to handle the weight of a battery bank...Hundreds of tons of batteries.....

Now tell me,  if aluminum melted wouldn't lead? and wouldn't all the office material that came into contact with it burn up or melt, and you expect a clean flow of aluminum? Or did you think maybe that was hundreds of tons of thermite melting some iron? you did didn't you...I'm sorry i spoiled your wish......


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Ever seen a thermite grenade dropped into a 55 gallon drum of Diesel? It's an explosion.
Please explain how the entire building fell at free fall
I explained the facade exactly, please prove me otherwise.
And you obviously don't know much about how molten metals act and how things react to molten metal. And I'm no expert, but I do know that lots of things were in the way of anything flowing out of that building.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Look in a phone book for your area..... I bet you've got a few..........


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


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



After which you absolutely must read Debunking the Debunking Debunkers which completely exposes the greed factor behind (and pseudo science employed by) the Debunking Debunkers.

Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


thats gomer ollie logic for ya.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > "risk their jobs"
> ...



yeah agent rat in the ass doesnt quite get that,He wont get off the crack he has been smoking to realise that many people like steven jones for instance who publicy questinond the 9/11 commisisons findings,got fired from job after that like so many others did.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



ashes can mix with aluminum?  news to me, got a citation how this feat is accomplished?

Stop pretending it was aluminum and demanding that I tell you what was mixed with your fantasy, how the hell should I know, its your fantasy!

Yeh and damn it lead flows away too why it is silver.  

Did you sneak a crucible up there when the cameras were shut down?  

office materials turn to ash not flow like a glowing river.

yeh if you picked up aluminum after it solidified it would not be mixed with office materials or other nonsimilar metals.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Gomer of course will say this one fell at freefall speed but building 7 and the towers did not.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...




the schools depend on gub funding.  Especially Purdue! LMAO


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The word on the street is that GW Bush and a couple of G-Scout troops loaded the explosives and prepped the WTC for demo on a Jamboree weekend. The poor girls were then loaded onto American Air flight 77 and slammed into the pentagon to insure their silence. Ya can't be too careful.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 18, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Thanks, Ollie. To be honest I have never really explored the details of everything the CT loons allege because it is all based upon their failure to comprehend the basic engineering principles. It stands to reason that the FBI would have done their job properly and that the CT were just throwing stuff at the wall hoping that it would stick. It just never rose to a level where I felt compelled enough to track that question down myself. And as it turns out there is nothing to it just like there is nothing to any of the other CT nonsense either.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



But then I don't know what I'm talking about. Ask them.... What they don't understand is that I've read more and watched more videos than most of them have, to include their videos....Some are better than a comedy hour....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



wow this guy is a loon,the fact that listen to anything gomer ollie posts,the chickenshit coward who runs off with his tail between his legs when cofronted with facts he cant refute.another agent troll that has penetrated this site.

the loons are you trolls who ignore what demolition experts say,architiects and engineers,high ranking militay officials say and expert pilots.yeah all those witnesses that heard explosions in the basement were all lying and all those EXPERTS are all wrong,anf gomer ollie is right,sorry troll,but you have no evidence in your ramblings that other buildings have fallen down in the past at freefall speed in their own footprints due to fires like bld 7 did and clearly no nothing at all about the laws of physics that it should have fallen gradually over a period of time and falen sideways.

any junior high school kid learns that idiot liar. and like your idiot troll buddy Gomer ollie ,you have NO ANSWERS FOR THESE FACTS IN POST # 58 of mine 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...lverstein-vs-the-official-gov-t-report-4.html


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > What are planes made from? How many tons of aluminum were melted by those raging fires? How many tons of magnesium was set alight by those raging fires? Do you know what temperature magnesium burns at?
> ...



a MERE collpase of a building due to fire,doesnt throw steel beams weighing several tons over 6oo feet into the air either. the agents like gomer ollie and dawgshit will say compression of the air caused them to thrown that far.they always do.comedy gold.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2014)

Yep I run off like a whupped puppy, But 911shitforbrains is afraid to debate......

I'm still here....What you got shitforbrains?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 deliberately misstates what LS said.

Conspiracy theorists should be sued for libel, and if they can't prove their OP, should be fined to the limit.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> a MERE collpase of a building due to fire,doesnt throw steel beams weighing several tons over 6oo feet into the air either. the agents like gomer ollie and dawgshit will say compression of the air caused them to thrown that far.they always do.comedy gold.



Ever wonder why so few posters bother to attach their Screen Names to yours by giving you the occasional "Thanks?" Perhaps you think the gov't conspires to remove them from you but the fact is virtually no one has any RESPECT for you or ANYTHING you say. Even like minded CT idiots cringe with embarrassment at the silly stupid shit (SSS) that rolls off your keyboard, Princess.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Ever wonder why so few posters bother to attach their Screen Names to yours by giving you the occasional "Thanks?" Perhaps you think the gov't conspires to remove them from you but the fact is virtually no one has any RESPECT for you or ANYTHING you say. Even like minded CT idiots cringe with embarrassment at the silly stupid shit (SSS) that rolls off your keyboard, Princess.




most likely doesnt have a drawer full of socks like you & company?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> 9/11 deliberately misstates what LS said.
> 
> Conspiracy theorists should be sued for libel, and if they can't prove their OP, should be fined to the limit.




did they leave words out?

Does that mean that NIST will be sued for their mistatements or is that ok with you?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




I find "columns bursting in air" fascinating.  Those brilliant white flames. 

Should be the new national anthem!

well yeh explosives compress a lot of air.

So does dablunder beer farts and belches that we have seen so far.  If they had oil dubya would be coming after them for brandishing wmd's


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Gomer would say that?  You dont say?

huggers and daBlunders dont surprise me too much any more.  On hugger thought the wtc perimeter was glass.  
Another one on this board as a matter of fact was clueless how freefall worked.

I noticed my freefall test question was ignored.  Not surprising when their panties are around their ankles LOL


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ever wonder why so few posters bother to attach their Screen Names to yours by giving you the occasional "Thanks?" Perhaps you think the gov't conspires to remove them from you but the fact is virtually no one has any RESPECT for you or ANYTHING you say. Even like minded CT idiots cringe with embarrassment at the silly stupid shit (SSS) that rolls off your keyboard, Princess.
> ...



While there is no evidence that anyone here is a sock there is *overwhelming evidence* that neither you nor Princess HandJob have ever kissed a girl.
Here's a tip, KooKoo: Get a life (or at least some professional help).


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 18, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



seriously





we know the typical dablunder social life however.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The math doesn't lie! The architects and engineers that can do the math come up with the same results. It is only those who claim to be engineers and who are milking the gullible CT crowd for all they can get that are saying otherwise. And yes, you are their victims because you lack the knowledge, math and critical thinking skills to realize that you are being duped.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > What are planes made from? How many tons of aluminum were melted by those raging fires? How many tons of magnesium was set alight by those raging fires? Do you know what temperature magnesium burns at?
> ...



Do you understand what you are seeing? Why don't you tell us what you imagine is happening in that video?


----------



## Freewill (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Perhaps it is English to which you have a problem.

Façade: fa·cade
[ f&#601; sáad ]


1.visible surface: the face of a building, especially the principal or front face showing its most prominent architectural features
2.deceptive appearance: the way something or somebody appears on the surface, especially when that appearance is false or meant to deceive

I don't see on in your video.  But do notice one thing on all the videos you supply that are of controlled explosions.  The building doesn't fall downf rom the top as we saw with all the WTC buildings all the floors fall at the same time.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Sorry you will have to point it out to them they are really not honest enough to admit what is obvious.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


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



Actually one CT loon did admit it and has been ostracized and threatened by his former comrades:

The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind - Telegraph

So who is Charlie Veitch you ask? Good question. In the real world he's a nothing: a bobble-head doll. But in the loony CT Movement he was good buddies with the movement's royalty ... that is until he had an epiphany, realized he was a CT sheeple, and threw himself on the floor screaming, "I was duped." He sounds like an idiot even as he posts his mea culpa but some of what he says is rational and logical and the reaction of the CT Movement reveals all one needs to know about the insecure asswipes who populate that cult.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 19, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And then when you have your head full of spin and guesswork, we'll tell you the real truths again......
> ...




all dablunders are official experts, just ask them!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




sure but you obviously dont. 

Thats ok because I cant wait to hear the story you cranked up.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


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




yeh like the *loony* dablunder self supporting facade crazy? (rmm I mean theory)

There is another description for that thinking and its not critical.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2014)

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

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

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Believe it or not.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



So you are not even going to try to explain your own position? Why is that? Afraid of embarrassing yourself again?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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



Prove that the math lies!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 19, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
> 
> The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
> 
> ...




NOT, because nists bs model that you are promoting as dablunder truth took 40% longer that the real building to collapse and instead of coming nearly straight down like the REAL building it twisted up like a pretzel and caved.  NIST is so embarrassed they wont even show the whole thing.






*The best NIST could do with column 79 failure LMAO*









ok next line of labunk you want to tell us?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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





As if the NIST model needed to be the exact same time frame when it's actual purpose was just to demonstrate the sequence of failures.

Just how gullible does someone have to be to believe that NIST was trying to hide something when it produced that explanatory video of the sequence of failures?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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



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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



yep you ditched junior high school science classes obviously. I have met people that were in junior high school over the years who even THEY knew explosives brought down the buildings,from theri science classes where they were learning about the laws of physics that were violated that day,they knew something was fishy.your so dense,that if your not an agent like gomer ollie and dawgshit and just in denial,you for sure skipped junior high school science classes so your in no position to talk about math.

let me guess,you think oswald killed JFK as well right? another conspiracy where the laws of physics prove it was impossile for that to be done.if you believe that,then you are clearly hopeles and scared of the truth about government corruption and theres no point in going any further with you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ever wonder why so few posters bother to attach their Screen Names to yours by giving you the occasional "Thanks?" Perhaps you think the gov't conspires to remove them from you but the fact is virtually no one has any RESPECT for you or ANYTHING you say. Even like minded CT idiots cringe with embarrassment at the silly stupid shit (SSS) that rolls off your keyboard, Princess.
> ...




no surprising that Dawgshit would say that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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



of course it was ignored,everything that goes against their version of events they ignore or claim the witneses were lying.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...





excellent gif there.thats so true of these shills here at this site like Gomer and dawgshit.They kiss each others ass to the extremes.for instance,there used to be a coupple posters here named Obamamerican and divecon,no matter what kind of facts you brought to them,links of high ranking government officials saying it was an inside job or videos of it,they didnt even TRY to counter your facts,they would just reply saying-9/11 wasnt an inside job you fucking moron or something like that.thats how they debated.

Thats when I decided to put Gomer Ollie for instance on ignore,becaue I know if I had someone that had the same beliefs i did about 9/11,I would be embarrassed to hell to have those two posters on my side if i were them,I would be telling them to shut the hell up,that they are making our side look really bad and hurting our cause.not them though,all they did is kiss their ass and pat them on the back when they demonstrated that childish behavior so that kissing of that ass gif is so appropriate for them.thats all they do,kiss each others ass no matter how childish they act.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Ironic given your grammar and spelling shortcomings. Were you home schooled by any chance? You are most certainly an "asset" as far the CT 9/11 clown parade goes. 

*Deceleration Alert!
 [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


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



hey unlike the disinfo agents here ,I dont have all day long to waste trolling on the boards,i type hitting many letters by mistake being in a rush all the time cause im pressed for time.

nice evasion to the facts that you ditched junior high school science classes.

I have to assume from this reply that you DO believe the warren commission as well then? 

well if thats the case, then you are progammed and brainwashed beyond belief if your not an agent like gomer and dawgshit are which I dont think you are.

 if you believe in the warren report,then what experts such as demolition experts and witnesses saw,many being very credible firefighters eperienced in demolitions,then your too far gone to be reasoned with obviously.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


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



Nope your an agent,just much more clever than gomer olle and dawgshit are.ignoring that there are almost 2000 architects and enginners who dont bld 7.the crux of the 9/11 coverup. I run into people all the time that see my 9/11 was an inside job t shirt i wear,once in while I will come across former retired ones who give the thumbs up when they see it telling me when they saw bld 7 collapse,they knew expolosives brought it down. they didnt skip junior high school science classes like you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Your gullibility is to all too apparent in your fallacious assumptions and no, I don't buy your feeble excuse of being "too busy". Your obsession with junior high school tells me that you dropped out because you couldn't cut it and now you work at some menial job where you have access to the internet between selling cigarettes and candy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


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



somehow to the logic of the official conspiracy theory apologists,the compression of air was solely responsible for  those steel columns being thrown in the air 600 feet away and no explosives were used at all.comedy gold.works for a fairy tale you want to write.not in the real world though.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC  Ollie said:
> ...






HUH??? First day out from under the rock?  NIST tried to hide freefall and one of those evil truthers forced them to openly admit it freefell and change their final report!

Oh yeh see the whole purpose of spending 7 years to make a model is to show that it is mathematically possible, in this case probable and it all backfired and they instead proved freefall as a result of fire was impossible.

I realize you arent firing on all 8, but if the model does not at least look the same as the REAL DEAL then natural collapse was not possible.  Single digit IQ is all that is required to figger that out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


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



Funny theories you have about me.thats funny. nice evasion of the facts,yo definetely ditched junior high school science classes obviously I see.

Instead of addressing any of the facts I mentioned,you evade them.the fact you wont address my question about JFK answers the question for me that you do believe the warren commission report which for sure proves you flunked junior high school science classes since you clearly are not aware that n both cases,the laws of physics were violated.so this is your paid gig.

you keep trolling,since as with the case of JFK,you ignore witness testimonys,in both very credible people,is prove to me right there you are a paid troll.again you're much more clever than gomer ollie,dawgshit and freewill that for sure.my ignore list grows larger.evade the facts,change the subject.classic paid shill tactic,


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Thats an understatement that he doesnt understand what he is seeing there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



yep only an agent would listen to anything gomer ollie says.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I see agent deridoe is the newest agent troll who when confronted with overwhelming facts and evidnce he cant refute,has no rebutalls to this post.Like his fellow trolls gomer ollie,Dawgshit and Freewill,cowardly runs away from those videos and links like his fellow troll Gomer that he listens  always does.Like clockwork,the shills are so easy to predict.evade the facts,change the subject.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > > > NOT, because nists bs model that you are promoting as dablunder truth took 40% longer that the real building to collapse and instead of coming nearly straight down like the REAL building it twisted up like a pretzel and caved.  NIST is so embarrassed they wont even show the whole thing.
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 19, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Trying to decipher your babbling is a waste of my time. 

This is your official notice that you are now ignored. Any further communication addressed to me will be a rule infraction and reported accordingly. You have been warned. Have a nice day!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


wrong koko douche...

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

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

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

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


 This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timecompared to the 3.9 second free fall timewas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


what's not surprising is you handjob wishing I did..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 20, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 20, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




duh

they dry labbed it to match their shit model.  get some comprehension skills


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> This is your official notice that you have been ignored. *Any attempts to contact me* will be reported. Have a nice day!




are you out of your fucking mind?  Forget it, yes you are! LMAO

If you think I am going to "contact" you to apologize for handing you your ass guess again.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 20, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> See that's the problem, we've kicked the shit out of their theories so much that 911shitforbrains claims we are all on ignore so he doesn't have to debate us, He thinks that way he can say anything and no one can argue against it....
> And several others don't even come here anymore.
> Don't be like them. It allows them to think they've won some kind of prise....



rule number 1) if a truther hands a debunker OSHugger their ass put the truther on ignore and pretend you won!!!


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


really ...you should learn to read

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


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 20, 2014)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




yep 3 stages, standing, falling, done.  freefall for 2.7 seconds


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 20, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


that'S right ...the only thing it proves is for that very short space of time that part of the facade SPED UP.NOTHING MORE 
IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT PRE PLANTED EXPLOSIVES OR ACCELERATES WERE USED..
in your delusional state I can see where you'd make that false assumption.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > See that's the problem, we've kicked the shit out of their theories so much that 911shitforbrains claims we are all on ignore so he doesn't have to debate us, He thinks that way he can say anything and no one can argue against it....
> ...



that why911shitforbrains is so proud that he has everyone on ignore?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



That's the roofline......Not the interior of the building that started 9 seconds prior...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


it's his favorite lie, except for the 10"dick one..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 20, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



oh?
I have news for you, its the same with the interior, 3 stages, standing, falling, done.  freefall time only ollie knows, he was inside with dawes


----------



## Derideo_Te (Mar 21, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 21, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> But they're fun to kick around now and then...........




Yes they are until they turn around and give you one bloody nose after another!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





and you run away crying like a lil baby and put em on ignore!  LMAO


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2014)

LOL, Kookoo, you couldn't punch your way out of a torn paperbag. You still believe that wtc7fell at freefall speed even though you know you don't count the first 9 seconds....


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 21, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > But they're fun to kick around now and then...........
> ...



yeah gomer ollie puts any kind of videos that shoot down his babbling and lies down on ignore and runs away crying like a little baby  EVERYTIME.never fails. just like they all do.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 21, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Mar 22, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> LOL, Kookoo, you couldn't punch your way out of a torn paperbag. You still believe that wtc7fell at freefall speed even though you know you don't count the first 9 seconds....


why would I?  I have 2 drops of jet fuel and a lighter! LMAO

so you do not understand what freefall means either huh?  

Lets test your understanding and see if you have a clue.

How long did it take for this building to freefall.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2014)

It's not about your simulation. it's about you claiming freefall for nothing more than a wall of brick because you won't accept the fact that there was nothing left behind it. Those 2.25 seconds mean exactly nothing.


----------



## n0spam4me (Mar 22, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> It's not about your simulation. it's about you claiming freefall for nothing more than a wall of brick because you won't accept the fact that there was nothing left behind it. Those 2.25 seconds mean exactly nothing.



2.25 seconds of free fall 
given that the falling bit kept its shape on the way down.
is VERY significant.  Given the keeping its shape feature
it very clearly indicates that the support under the falling bit
was removed all at the same time, otherwise, the building would
have tilted or deformed but it came down as a unit, keeping its shape as it fell.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about your simulation. it's about you claiming freefall for nothing more than a wall of brick because you won't accept the fact that there was nothing left behind it. Those 2.25 seconds mean exactly nothing.
> ...



All of which is irrefutable proof that GW Bush and a roudy band of girl scouts spent a wild weekend at the WTC wiring those buildings for demo.
Sheesh ... you CT loons are terminally stupid.


----------



## n0spam4me (Mar 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



In the face of irrefutable evidence, you make silly jokes
about Dubya being personally involved in rigging the building for demolition.

Silly Rabbi......
Kicks R 4 Tridz!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about your simulation. it's about you claiming freefall for nothing more than a wall of brick because you won't accept the fact that there was nothing left behind it. Those 2.25 seconds mean exactly nothing.
> ...



It does not prove any such thing. In fact we know simply by watching a real video that the interior building collapsed from east to west in a progressive collapse leaving the northern facade intact. Watch the entire sequence and you can see what the truther videos leave out. the east penthouse collapses into the interior of the building about 9 seconds before the roof line on the facade moves. While the west penthouse moved basically with the roof line if not a split second before.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about your simulation. it's about you claiming freefall for nothing more than a wall of brick because you won't accept the fact that there was nothing left behind it. Those 2.25 seconds mean exactly nothing.
> ...



Dont waste your breath on resident troll Gomer Pyle Ollie nospam.He trolls these boards igoring pesky facts,the laws of physics,witness testimonys and what the best experts in the world say only worshipping what our corrupt government institutions and lamestream media  say. a paid shill like many on this board that has pentrated this forum.

They ignore the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years and that every grade school graduate learns that buildings dont fall at freefall speed like the towers or bld 7 did due to fires,that the GRADUALLY come down over a period of time and that the laws of physics dictate the building should have tilted over sideways just like you said,the fact you can see one of the towers tilt sideways before the explosions go off.

they also never have any answers as you can see,to post # 58 here of mine.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...lverstein-vs-the-official-gov-t-report-4.html


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



thats agent dawgshit for ya.everytime he is cornered with pesky facts,he evades them with jokes.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2014)

Why is 911 shit for brains afraid to debate any one?

Because he has had his ass handed to hi everytime he opens his mouth.

So he pretends we are all on ignore and that he has won something...

Hilarious....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2014)

somone farted in here.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



The only irrefutable evidence here is that which proves you aren't bright enough to understand facetiousness, Princess, and at the end of the day your silly controlled demo CT fails for lack of reality. I'm betting your not bright enough to understand that either but you could ask an adult to explain it to you.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 24, 2014)

Can't sleep. 

I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant. 

Having said that, _even if he were_ the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even _contain_) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 24, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Can't sleep.
> 
> I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
> 
> ...



Maybe you should get some sleep. I see you have gone from slightly unhinged CT to full bore Nazi. Curiously, I find many in the 9/11 CT Movement to be of the anti-Semite variety idiot. Quoting the Protocols of Zion should attract just the sort of attention you desire. Enjoy. Sieg Heil, Bubba.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 24, 2014)

It's curious, Sayit, that you chose to address the quote in my signature line rather than the facts in the post itself. Transparent, but curious nonetheless.



SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Can't sleep.
> ...



Why should a quotation from a work partially plagiarized from _Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, ou la Politique de Machiavel au XIX. Siècle. Par un Contemporain_, in which the spirits of Montesquieu and Machiavelli render a thinly-veiled attack on the despotism of Napoleon III, be viewed as evidence of antisemitism? 

I just liked the passage from the forgery on the basis of its seeming applicability to events in the post-911 era.

Not that I mind the characterization, mind you. Nowadays being labeled an anti-Semite seems par for the course for anyone with legitimate criticisms about US policies, foreign and domestic, ...which is not to say that my signature line should be interpreted as such a criticism. 

For the one-time benefit of anyone with no meter for sarcasm, I haven't a racially prejudiced bone in my body, although my saying so will likely do little to alter the ad homs of a mental midget like Sayit.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 24, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Can't sleep.
> 
> I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
> 
> Having said that, _even if he were_ the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even _contain_) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.




So, are you one of those unbelievable idiots who thinks that the "Protocols of Zion" is a real book, when in reality, that shit has been debunked 100s of times over? Really?

Looks like we got another Jew-hater in our midst. Color me totally surprised.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> So, are you one of those unbelievable idiots who thinks that the "Protocols of Zion" is a real book, when in reality, that shit has been debunked 100s of times over? Really?



No, I'm just a humble layman with more than a passing appreciation for the art of embedding truths in works of fiction.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 24, 2014)

Doesn't anyone want to discuss Larry Silverstein's lease, in light of his puzzling statement during the infamous PBS documentary? 

Lots of unanswered questions there.

For instance, on whose authority was he acting when he told the FDNY official to "pull it" (whatever the hell he meant by that)?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 24, 2014)

Capstone said:


> ...Not that I mind the characterization, mind you. Nowadays being labeled an anti-Semite seems par for the course for anyone with legitimate criticisms about US policies, foreign and domestic, ...which is not to say that my signature line should be interpreted as such a criticism.
> 
> For the one-time benefit of anyone with no meter for sarcasm, I haven't a racially prejudiced bone in my body, although my saying so will likely do little to alter the ad homs of a mental midget like Sayit.



I find amusing the braying of a goose-stepping member of the Master Race who quotes from The Protocols and then, with straight face, refers to another person as "a mental midget." Carry on, Bubba.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



Q.E.D.

To all of you well-intentioned "mental midgets" out there: please accept my heartfelt apology for sullying the tag by using it in reference to Sayit.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 24, 2014)

Quote: Originally Posted by Capstone View Post 
Can't sleep. 

I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant. 

Having said that, even if he were the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even contain) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.



Capstone said:


> Doesn't anyone want to discuss Larry Silverstein's lease, in light of his puzzling statement during the infamous PBS documentary?
> 
> Lots of unanswered questions there.
> 
> For instance, on whose authority was he acting when he told the FDNY official to "pull it" (whatever the hell he meant by that)?



In your first post (above) you claim to be aware that WTC7 was not leased to Silverstein Properties and that his firm collected no insurance money from its demise. That would end any rational poster's interest but apparently not those who quote from The Protocols.
I can't speak factually of the conversation but I can speculate:
Perhaps the fire commish thought Silverstein was the lessor of WTC7 and called him hoping to find another water source or perhaps it was a courtesy call to inform him that there was no way to stop the fires in that building. 
As you and I both noted, Silverstein had no authority to pull anything and was likely giving his blessing to the fire commish to do what was prudent.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by Capstone View Post
> Can't sleep.
> 
> I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
> ...


no logic allowed....!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 24, 2014)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by Capstone View Post
> ...



Certainly not when confronting small-minded knuckle draggers like Cap.


----------



## aris2chat (Mar 25, 2014)

Capstone said:


> It's curious, Sayit, that you chose to address the quote in my signature line rather than the facts in the post itself. Transparent, but curious nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You should have quoted Lenin (John) instead and been less offensive.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > It's curious, Sayit, that you chose to address the quote in my signature line rather than the facts in the post itself. Transparent, but curious nonetheless.
> ...


what fun would there be in that?


----------



## Capstone (Mar 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> In your first post (above) you claim to be aware that WTC7 was not leased to Silverstein Properties and that his firm collected no insurance money from its demise. ...



Silverstein's lease and the terms of the decision that led to the widely publicized 2007 settlement are matters of public record.



SAYIT said:


> *...That would end any rational poster's interest* but apparently not those who quote from The Protocols.



"That would end any rational poster's interest" ...in what? 

Certainly not the issue on which this entire thread was based! 

In fact, any _rational_ person's interest in the whole _Silverstein vs. the Official Gov't Report_ thing ...should be piqued upon discovering that Lucky Larry had no business to have been involved with any sort of judgement calls concerning buildings 3, 6, or 7, much less the reported decision to "pull it" (read: abandon all efforts to extinguish or contain the ongoing fires, which *[*]*_the Government's own scientificlackeys_ would have us believe eventually caused a "global collapse" with a period of "freefall" that lasted for approximately 8 stories: a forced partial concession of *a physical impossibility*, in light of the purported absence of the simultaneous removal of all support columns and beams across the entire breadths and widths of all 8 of those floors, for which there wasn't so much as an _attempt_ to explain it); but I digress. The two-pronged point is this: Larry Silverstein's own televised comments aren't consistent with a personal acknowledgement of his own irrelevance WRT the matter of building 7's future prospects on 9/11/2001, and THAT should be _very interesting_ to people on all sides of this debate (at least to those with IQ's higher than their ages, I mean).



SAYIT said:


> *...Perhaps the fire commish thought Silverstein was the lessor of WTC7* and called him hoping to find another water source or perhaps it was a courtesy call to inform him that there was no way to stop the fires in that building. ...



In which case, Silverstein's failure to set the Official straight prior to providing input on the matter of "pull[ing] it", would be far more defensible as an act of ignorance than one of intentional silence that would have ultimately misled a public safety official.



SAYIT said:


> ...As you and I both noted, Silverstein had no authority to pull anything and was likely giving his blessing to the fire commish to do what was prudent.



Knowing (or even suspecting) that the Official believed him to have authority on the matter, but allowing that Official to proceed _with his blessing_ under false pretenses, would have been inexcusable. 

Personally, I have my doubts that such a conversation ever transpired.

The question, in my mind, is WHY? Why would Larry have admitted to this act of ignorance-based negligence (at best) or potentially criminal malfeasance (at worst)? His PBS appearance has certainly done him no favors.

Today, more than ever before, a lot of people in the US and around the world have come to see the man as an insider on _perhaps_ the most heinous false flag operation ever foisted upon the human race.

___________________________
***NIST NCSTAR-1A, _Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center potentially Building 7_, pg. 45 (Washington, DC. November 2008.)


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 26, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > In your first post (above) you claim to be aware that WTC7 was not leased to Silverstein Properties and that his firm collected no insurance money from its demise. ...
> ...



Certainly fools who find 'truth" in the Protocols of Zion.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Certainly fools who find 'truth" in the Protocols of Zion. ...



Maybe the topic is worthy of its own thread based on methodological parallelism, in which the original poster could carefully lay out some of the uncanny similarities between the fictional work and real-life events/states of political affairs around the world over the past few decades. 

I wonder whether such an endeavor would be possible without specific regard to  ethnicity or religious affiliations of the text's 'real-life' counterparts.


----------



## KevinWestern (Apr 21, 2014)

Thread bump.

So as I mentioned before, there are some tough hurdles to making the explosives argument. However, there are some issues I still have with the fire-induced collapse theory. 

I realize that steel doesn&#8217;t need to be heated to 1,800F to weaken, so the fact that a building fire can&#8217;t reach that temp is somewhat insignificant. However, I still have these questions:

1.) If you view movies of the WTC7 collapse, the roof appears to be rather horizontal throughout the fall. This tells me that the 81 support beams throughout were collapsing/snapping/breaking at approximately the same time. Given that fire is the main culprit here, doesn't that seem a bit miraculous and unlikely? I mean, an asymmetrical fire might heat up a number of columns in one/two areas to consistent temperatures, but all 81 columns collapsing simultaneously? From fire? That&#8217;s a tough one for me to swallow:







2.) I&#8217;ve read that steel-framed high rises are OVERENGINEERED to survive the instances of extremely temperatures, and in ALL OTHER EXAMPLES of long lasting fires in steel frame buildings (there was one that raged 18 hours in the early 1990&#8217;s, I believe) collapses were always, without exception partial and localized to the very specific areas that endured the most heat. 

What happened with WTC7 exactly? *Should we throw the architects/engineers in jail for gross negligence?* I mean, PARTS of the building were burning for only around 7 hours or so and the entire 40+ story building seemed to collapse like it was a house of cards! Shouldn&#8217;t we immediately tear down any and all buildings constructed by those same firms?

3.) Given that in the history of mankind no other steel framed skyscrapers have ever completely collapsed due to fire alone, how in God&#8217;s name was WTC7&#8217;s collapse predicted in advance so accurately (by the Fire Dept, BBC news)? There are absolutely zero precedents prior &#8211; in the past 70+ years of modern skyscraper firefighting, of how a building behaves before it collapses - so what sort of &#8220;signs&#8221; were they going off of that would allow them to ACCURATELY predict the collapse of WTC7 within 20-30 min before it happened?

4.) I've read that both nanothermite and molten steel were discovered at ground zero and that these two things can't be explained. Is that true? 

Again, I&#8217;m open for a kind and respectful argument. If you&#8217;re going to be arrogant or condescending, then go somewhere else, please.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2014)

You seem to be another that tries to make the facts fit what you want to be true.

Go find a video of the entire collapse of the building. You know what I mean, One that shows the 8+seconds of the beginning of the collapse before the so called roof line even begins to move....


----------



## KevinWestern (Apr 21, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> You seem to be another that tries to make the facts fit what you want to be true.
> 
> Go find a video of the entire collapse of the building. You know what I mean, One that shows the 8+seconds of the beginning of the collapse before the so called roof line even begins to move....



Would love to see it if you have a link. Again, I don't have a definitive opinion on the subject yet. Just asking questions.

Also, (as I mentioned) wouldn't it be a good idea to reexamine every building these architects/engineers built to make sure they don't collapse from fire too? 5-7 hours of fires on only a few floors doesn't seem like it should be able to bring down a 40 story structure, especially given that no other steel framed skyscraper collapsed prior to this event due to fire alone. Doesn't the collapse point to a major design or structural flaw?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2014)

Pay attention at 2:25 through 2:33....8 seconds that most truther sites don't show you.
And this is a truther video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3ACKK7HGUE]New footage of building 7 newly released via freedom of imformation act - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## KevinWestern (Apr 21, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Pay attention at 2:25 through 2:33....8 seconds that most truther sites don't show you.
> And this is a truther video.
> 
> New footage of building 7 newly released via freedom of imformation act - YouTube



You are absolutely correct in that it changes up the landscape a little bit. To not show the whole video is dishonest.

However, I don&#8217;t understand how this video would explain the entire structure plummeting at free fall speeds for about 2.5 seconds following the penthouse collapse (confirmed by NIST report. See &#8220;stage 2&#8221 Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation). 

Again, this building went down like a house of cards after fire was burning throughout just a handful of floors for only 5-7 hours. Again, shouldn&#8217;t we examine EVERY building built by the credited architectural/design/engineering firms to make sure THOSE buildings don&#8217;t flimsily collapse in the case of a fire breaking out?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 21, 2014)

Because the entire structure didn't fall at free fall speed, the facade did, because if you see what happens first the inside of the building goes first leaving nothing much but the facade standing.... You know,  that outer wall that stands there for 8 seconds that truthers want everyone to believe is the entire building.....


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Because the entire structure didn't fall at free fall speed, the facade did, because if you see what happens first the inside of the building goes first leaving nothing much but the facade standing.... You know,  that outer wall that stands there for 8 seconds that truthers want everyone to believe is the entire building.....




another show of debunker idiocy

*translation, the wall fell several seconds before the paint on the wall!*

Just like this one!





all demolitions that you want to land in its own footprint take out the core first DUH

nothing hidden, get a clip with the proper frame rate instead of coming up with a new dablunder theory that doesnt agree with anyone but debunkering dablunderers


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2014)

Gee, now you don't even trust what you see in truther videos...Poor Kookoomo


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee, now you don't even trust what you see in truther videos...Poor Kookoomo




No ollie, I dont trust your long proven bullshit analysis, unless of course you want to explain how the wall can fall and the paint remain standing LMAO


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee, now you don't even trust what you see in truther videos...Poor Kookoomo



Competing "truthers" have long pointed accusing fingers at one another as they vie for followers. The $64 question is: why do these so-called "truthers" lie and distort the facts when the truth is so readily available? Is it all about selling T-shirts and coffee mugs or is there something more sinister at work?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, now you don't even trust what you see in truther videos...Poor Kookoomo
> ...







just ask you! 

HAHAHAHA


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 23, 2014)

Tell us why most truther videos leave out the first 8 seconds or so of the actual collapse Kookoo.

You must have a valid reason.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Tell us why most truther videos leave out the first 8 seconds or so of the actual collapse Kookoo.
> 
> You must have a valid reason.




heres a test for ya Ollie

See if you can get it right.

Did this building freefall and if it did freefall how long was the freefall?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

What the hell does that building have to do with 9-11-01? It is obviously a controlled demo.

That you want to try to use it as a comparison to anything on 9-11 does nothing but show your ignorance.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> What the hell does that building have to do with 9-11-01? It is obviously a controlled demo.
> 
> That you want to try to use it as a comparison to anything on 9-11 does nothing but show your ignorance.




Ollie, its NOT a comparison, its a very simple question, like asking you to give the answer to 1+1 to see if you really are capable of making any credible assessments on the matters at hand.  This was your opportunity to be the shining star!

Unfortunately you failed miserably.  That sorta proves you are the one showing ignorance and your claims are frankly worthless.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 24, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us why most truther videos leave out the first 8 seconds or so of the actual collapse Kookoo.
> ...



A lame diversion. 
Sarge asked you a simple, straight-forward question: "Tell us why most truther videos leave out the first 8 seconds or so of the actual collapse Kookoo."

Once again you fail, Princess.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



ah huh, but its meaningless if sarge has no clue what he is doing as he has clearly demonstrated by his failure to answer my question.

If you wish to take his place start by answering my question.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

Your question has nothing to do with it dumb ass. Now do I know if a building that is demolished under controlled conditions falls at free fall speed, I suppose some do and some don't, that one didn't because it was a progressive demo.

Now I freely admit that I am not an expert at building demolition, though I was in a training video using massive amounts of thermite, in several different formats.

But You can't answer for those 8 seconds because what is going on during that time period totally throws your wannabe conspiracy out the window.....

Now go play with the children Kookoo, and leave the adults alone.......


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 24, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



More of the same, lame deflection. Please refer to the first rule of the hole:
When in over your (pin) head, STOP DIGGING!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...







thats all you got is MORE dodging the point!  


No need to preach to me about lame when you cant even tell everyone the freefall time of that other building.  

your no expert, hell you dnt even rate as an amateur!

Who in their right mind is going to see you as credible when you cant even give the correct answer to a simple 1+1 question.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Your question has nothing to do with it dumb ass. Now do I know if a building that is demolished under controlled conditions falls at free fall speed, I suppose some do and some don't, that one didn't because it was a progressive demo.
> 
> Now I freely admit that I am not an expert at building demolition, though I was in a training video using massive amounts of thermite, in several different formats.
> 
> ...



My question most certainly does have something to do with it AND the fact that you want to pontificate your position which is total bullshit.

I dont need to answer for the 8 seconds because if you knew how this stuff works you would know your position is wrong in the place.

Its purely fizzzzix nothing to do with conspiracy so stop changing the subject.

*ALL* collapses are progressive LOL  

this is too funny!  

Can you name one that is not?

Another red herring.

I asked what the freefall speed was not what kind of collapse you think it is and you side stepped the issue with a red herring.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

And you have sidestepped for the last time. Go play your stupidity elsewhere.

You cannot tell us what happened during the first 8 minutes of that colapse because it destroys the freefall of the whole building BS.

Anyone with common sense can see it...

But then that is obviously the problem...

BTW, are you an expert? Do tell us about your own qualifications since you wish to question everyone else.


----------



## Capstone (Apr 24, 2014)

The government's own science lackeys admitted free-fall speed for 8 floors. A physical impossibility is a physical impossibility whether it involves only 8 or all 47 stories.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

2.25 seconds of what could be seen which was nothing but the facade. the stuff behind it had already fallen.

Did you have to go switch accounts?


----------



## Capstone (Apr 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> 2.25 seconds of what could be seen which was nothing but the facade. the stuff behind it had already fallen.



The _simultaneous_ failure of the "stuff behind" 8 floors (every last beam of structural steel across the breadth and height of that entire area) is every bit as impossible, _minus a mechanism for the simultaneity of the removal of *all resistance*_ (on which NIST apparently knew better than to even try to postulate), as any amount of free-fall. Without that mechanism, the 8-floor concession is an admission of a physical impossibility by default. 



SFC Ollie said:


> ...Did you have to go switch accounts?



I only have the one account, but I do like to change up my avatar and signature on a fairly regular basis.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

gee you sound just like the last guy....

So I'll ask again.

Why do almost all truther videos omit those first 8 seconds?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> And you have sidestepped for the last time. Go play your stupidity elsewhere.
> 
> You cannot tell us what happened during the first 8 minutes of that colapse because it destroys the freefall of the whole building BS.
> 
> ...







so you want everyone to believe some crazy assed dablunder theory.  Even NIST said it freefell.
common sense aint good enough, it takes knowledge of fizix.

All you have shown us that you can copy and paste some lunatic bunky dablunder theory and that you have no clue what actually happened.

Why dont you do what other blunderers do and run to the jref site for material and bring them back with you if you want to experience first hand my expertise since I dont see anyone here even qualified to shine my shoes.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

And you aren't qualified to lick my boots.

Always avoiding questions.

Give it up. I don't need anything other than common sense to tell you that your conspiracy falls apart when you take those 8 seconds into account. 

Now go avoid more questions and brag about your expertise some more.

Some of us can admit we are not experts. But still point out the flaws in your dreams.

How many architects and engineers you got signed up now? About 0.01% of them?

You got nothing.

But since you want some copy and paste i can do that too.......

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Capstone (Apr 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> gee you sound just like the last guy....
> 
> So I'll ask again.
> 
> Why do almost all truther videos omit those first 8 seconds?



Not to concede your point, but it's totally irrelevant to the impossibility of _any amount_ of free-fall (including the amount admitted by NIST) without the sort of mechanism mentioned in my previous post. My argument isn't based on the veracity of truther videos; it's based on the veracity of NIST's own admission.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

Whatever, I don't give a rats ass if the building fell at freefall or as i have shown just the facade did. Or none at all...

What I do care about is that there was not any controlled demolition of the building.

There is zero proof of any such claim.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Whatever, I don't give a rats ass if the building fell at freefall or as i have shown just the facade did. Or none at all...
> 
> What I do care about is that there was not any controlled demolition of the building.
> 
> There is zero proof of any such claim.



sure there was, its proven, the only thing you can do is stand on your soap box cry and scream no it aint wah wah wah!  and standing on your soap box denying what is blatantly obvious is not "showing" anything.  Its the same bellaring that debunkers and deniers always do.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > gee you sound just like the last guy....
> ...



Its out of their league man!


----------



## Rockland (Apr 24, 2014)

Hmm, KaKaTroll is back.  That's interesting, in a boring kind of way.

Oh, hey, my tea is ready.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 24, 2014)

What's been proven other than you are nuts?

Prove to us there is a conspiracy here and lets get it taken to court. Someone must be guilty.....


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> What's been proven other than you are nuts?
> 
> Prove to us there is a conspiracy here and lets get it taken to court. Someone must be guilty.....




I never said anything about a conspiracy, everything I talked about was purely physics and proved to everyone that despite the fact you level claims you are clueless and cannot defend any of them even on the most elementary level.    I'm telling ya go over to jref and round up some buddies and bring em over, Im in the mood for kickin dummy debunker ass this weekend.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 25, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 2.25 seconds of what could be seen which was nothing but the facade. the stuff behind it had already fallen.
> ...



And that mechanism was what? An alien hyperbeam?


----------



## Capstone (Apr 25, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



Well, whatever you do, don't ask the NIST guys. Evidently their job was to conjure up an _explanatory_ model that included a period of free-fall ...for which they provided no explanation whatsoever!

What might have been the mechanism (see definition 3.) for the simultaneous removal of all resistance across the entire 8-floor region of free-fall admitted but in no way explained by NIST? 

To frame that question with some added perspective, what _could_ have simultaneously incinerated all of that structural steel at the very points that made the path of least resistance straight downward and inward?

Sporadic office fires and asymmetrical damage from fallen debris *couldn't possibly*  account for any period of free-fall, much less the overall uniformity of the "collapse" we've all seen on video time and again.

Understanding what *couldn't possibly* have been the mechanism of free-fall is just as vital as the question as to what *could* have been that mechanism.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 25, 2014)

So now you are telling us that you know more than NIST but you don't want to commit yourself.

Nice dodge. NIST explained it very well actually. And you can use common sense to see that the inside of the building collapsed and left the facade on the north side standing for a few seconds. You can talk all day about impossible but we all saw the building fall, and the conspiracy nuts are the ones who insist that it was at free fall. And no doubt part of it probably was. but it was a small part for 2.25 seconds. Now if that measures up to 8 stories i wouldn't know.


----------



## Capstone (Apr 25, 2014)

Steel-framed buildings can't "_collapse_" into and  through themselves at free-fall speed for ANY period of time, Ollie. That's because even a weakened structure would require energy to break up the steel framework, crush the concrete, and pulverize or push things around. If a building were falling straight downward, the "fall" couldn't possibly be "free", because the reaction forces between interacting building materials would *necessarily* slow the descent. Accordingly, an admission of any amount of free-fall is either a denial of the third law of motion or an affirmation of the complete removal of all resistance to the downward motion during the free-fall period. 

NIST initially denied _the mere possibility_ of free-fall and was only later forced to concede two and a quarter seconds worth, claiming *without explanation* that the concession was consistent with their previous global collapse analysis; which means we now have an officially acknowledged period of free-fall with no plausible mechanism for it.


----------



## Capstone (Apr 25, 2014)

And FYI, I'm *totally committed* to the discovery of truth. My unwillingness to accept the official account from a government agency as somehow authoritative over the laws of physics themselves(!) is indicative of that commitment.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 25, 2014)

In other words you are blind, have no common sense, deny that you are a CTer, and distrust anything the only agencies who have done, or are even in a position to do a complete investigation.

Got it, you can leave now you've trashed everything to include physics which you claim are impossible....

What was your degree in again?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 25, 2014)

there you guys go again feeding the government paid troll.


----------



## Capstone (Apr 25, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> ...Got it, you can leave now you've trashed everything to include physics which you claim are impossible....



I think I'll stay all the same, thanks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It's not that the physics are impossible; it's that the absence of a physical mechanism would render free-fall impossible (this is noncontroversial, BTW). 

Alongside the classification of the data used for their computer simulations, NIST's grudging acknowledgement of two and a quarter seconds worth of free-fall without so much as a vague blurb as to its physical mechanism is ample cause for any reasonable person to call into question the legitimacy of their findings.



SFC Ollie said:


> What was your degree in again?



I respect you, Ollie, so I'll go ahead and share a little something with you regarding my personal qualifications. I wear my lack of formal education/indoctrination as a badge of honor. Every tidbit of knowledge I've gleaned over the years through rigorous debate against far more knowledgeable and better-educated people ...is a gem that I treasure in the gilded chest that is my mind. Put me down and dismiss me as a High School dropout, as you like, but you best not take me lightly in a debate. Natural intelligence, a logical mind, and access to the internet are a powerful threesome.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 25, 2014)

Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 26, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".



sets the bait LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Apr 29, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".




oh that easy enough


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 29, 2014)

I'm sorry, did someone yank your chain? Didn't think so.


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 1, 2014)

they sure blew er all to hell eh....


----------



## Capstone (May 2, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".



From my earlier link:



> ...3. An instrument *or a process*, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: _"The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell)_. ...



As I've already pointed out, without violating the third law of motion, even two and a quarter seconds worth of free-fall would necessitate the removal of all resistance to the downward motion for that period of time.

NIST's explanation, which remained essentially unchanged from the first to its "final" incarnation, was that the building experienced a "progressive collapse" involving the interaction of building materials (read some degree of physical resistance) from start to finish. 

In their own words:

"_Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, *from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it*. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse._"

Even granting the ridiculous notion that the building's "entire façade" could somehow remain standing intact as all of the internal structural beams were taken out '_progressively_' like a trail of fallen dominoes (as opposed to simultaneously by some other means), the interacting materials in the façade itself would necessarily slow its descent, because concrete doesn't pulverize concrete without creating resistance either.

Physical progression "from structural element to element" is contingent on resistance. That means a "fire-induced _progressive_ collapse" couldn't possibly have been the mechanism of free-fall. It also means NIST would have us believe that the laws of physics were violated for 2.25 seconds on 9/11; and that's something I simply can't accept with any degree of intellectual honesty.


----------



## SAYIT (May 2, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".
> ...



But no evidence of any mechanical device was found so unless you believe all those connected to the investigation are hiding something, we're gonna hafta go with their findings. Do you have any evidence of or a theory about what brought down WTC7?


----------



## Dude111 (May 2, 2014)

KevinWestern said:
			
		

> And secondly, if building 7 was brought down manually by the Fire Department how did they manage to get the explosives set, etc so quickly?


Simple....... THEY WERE ALREADY IN PLACE LIKE THEY WERE IN THE TOWERS!!


----------



## Capstone (May 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> But no evidence of any mechanical device was found so unless you believe all those connected to the investigation are hiding something, we're gonna hafta go with what their findings. Do you have any evidence of or a theory about what brought down WTC7?



The lack of explanatory power as to the mechanism by which all resistance to the downward motion was completely removed for a period of 2.25 seconds is evidence in itself of the inadequacy of the NIST Report. That alone is a solid basis for questioning the legitimacy of their findings and for calling for a more objective analysis of the available data.

As badly as it might irk you, I don't have to _theorize_ about a goddamned thing.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 2, 2014)

Translation: DUH?


----------



## Capstone (May 2, 2014)

That's okay, Ollieboy; you keep on a'totin' and toutin' the veracity of your autographed copies of _The 9/11 Commission Report_ (which has been derided as a coverup by some of its own participants) and _The NIST Report_ (which, granted, only asks us to collectively suspend our faith in the laws of physics for a couple of seconds) ...and I'll keep on pushing for something remotely compelling from advocates of the officially authorized conspiracy theory.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 2, 2014)

And again, there is only one official report done by those in the best position to compile it. Other than trying to pick it apart with absolutely nothing, you got nothing.

It is the CTers who insist that the entire WTC7 fell at freefall speed. I have shown through nothing more than common sense that it did not. You want to pretend that both are wrong because of physics that you can't prove.

Carry on.........


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 3, 2014)

dont know how you can stand being in this thread with ollie since he cant open up his mouth without shitting all over the floor Cap.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 3, 2014)

Dude111 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



facts that are alittle bit too complicated for the concidence theorists to comprehend.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 3, 2014)

delete,double post.


----------



## Capstone (May 3, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> It is the CTers who insist that the entire WTC7 fell at freefall speed. I have shown through nothing more than common sense that it did not. You want to pretend that both are wrong because of physics that you can't prove.



I can't prove what? 

That every action has an equal yet opposite reaction? 

It doesn't matter whether Building 7 fell at free-fall velocity throughout its entire descent or not. What matters is that, according to NIST, it fell at the acceleration of gravity (free-fall) for about 2.25 seconds. That's around a hundred feet or approximately 8 floors worth of building materials descending against zero physical resistance; *and that's not consistent with the forces at work in a "fire-induced progressive collapse".* 

In other words, NIST's explanation doesn't follow from their own findings.

David Chandler (a guy who was instrumental in NIST's 2008 concession) explains why in the following video from 20:05 to 22:00.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9S6TYGVgpE]9/11-David Chandler-The Toronto Hearings - 09/10/11 - 11:02AM. - YouTube[/ame]

He also breaks down NIST's admission of free-fall from 40:11 to 42:20.

I personally don't go as far as Chandler's claim that free-fall is proof of explosive demolition, but it definitively disproves 'progressive collapse' as the mechanism behind the building's descent during the free-fall period; and that's more than sufficient to call into question the legitimacy of _The NIST Report_.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 3, 2014)

And still we ignore that only a portion of the building (the North facing facade) ever hit freefall speed.

And we know that the* interior of the building had already collapsed *seconds ahead of that...

Not difficult and don't need a guy reading Physics off a paper....

That's were those first 8 seconds that truthers like to ignore comes into play.


----------



## Capstone (May 3, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> And still we ignore that only a portion of the building (the North facing facade) ever hit freefall speed.
> 
> 
> And we know that the* interior of the building had already collapsed *seconds ahead of that...



*Again*, a physical impossibility is a physical impossibility, whether it involves 500 ft., 100 ft., or even a single foot.

That means I can take your points for granted and still deny the legitimacy of the goddamned NIST report.


----------



## Paulie (May 12, 2014)

Freewill said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



So we really don't know ANYTHING other than seeing some pics of fire, and that it fell.

But people are nut cases because they have questions about it, and the official story.  

The only people who get upset about that are the ones that are scared to death of the idea that maybe the official explanation wasn't true.

What are you so afraid of?


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 12, 2014)

No Paulie, people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.


----------



## Capstone (May 12, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> ...people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.



...and the 2.25 seconds worth of free-fall.

Wait a sec'; that would make _you_ a nutcase, wouldn't it, Ollie? 

You need to let this sink into your thick skull: the building could've taken a week to completely collapse and that still wouldn't account for NIST'S admission of a physically impossible period of free-fall.


----------



## SAYIT (May 12, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > ...people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.
> ...



But they can account for the fact that no evidence of a controlled demo was found. 
Now whatcha got?


----------



## Capstone (May 12, 2014)

SAYIT said:


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



I have all I need to prove _my_ claims in here and elsewhere.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 12, 2014)

I keep thinking have I seen where NIST admitted that the building was in freefall? Or just maybe the facade.

And are people smart enough to know the difference.


----------



## Capstone (May 12, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> I keep thinking have I seen where NIST admitted that the building was in freefall? Or just maybe the facade. ...



What exactly do you imagine the façade was made of, Ollie? -- _Non-physical_ building materials, I suppose?

I've already addressed this point at least a couple of times, but here we go again:



Capstone said:


> ...Even granting the ridiculous notion that the building's "entire facade" could somehow remain standing intact as all of the internal structural beams were taken out '_progressively_' like a trail of fallen dominoes (as opposed to simultaneously by some other means), *the interacting materials in the façade itself would necessarily slow its descent, because concrete doesn't pulverize concrete without creating resistance either.* ...





SFC Ollie said:


> ...And are people smart enough to know the difference.



In terms of the applicability of the laws of physics, there is no difference. Interacting building materials _of any stripe_ would've necessarily created resistance to the downward motion.

How many times and in how many ways does this non-controversial physical principle need to be repeated before it finially sinks in for you?

It's like talking to a wall.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 13, 2014)

It's the Ct'ers who supposedly measured this free fall. Ask them what they were measuring.

I still haven't seen in the NIST report any mention of free fall, Of course i can't be expected to remember every thing I've read.....

SO someone refresh my memory here...


----------



## Capstone (May 13, 2014)

And again, David Chandler's analysis at 40:11 in the video from this post is based on and uses NIST's own stage 2 chart (complete with its red regression line that confirms gravitational acceleration during that stage).


----------



## Capstone (May 13, 2014)

As detailed in the Q&A section here:



> [. . .] The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).
> 
> The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
> 
> ...



4.0 - 1.75 = 2.25 seconds of freefall. The assertion that this was "consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above" is misleading by virtue of omitting any consideration for the interaction of the building materials that composed the bearing walls themselves (I.E. the 4 sides of the so-called "facade") ...and is thereby NOT consistent with universally accepted physical principles.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 13, 2014)

So if (and that's a big if) the roof line (Because that is all they are revering to here, the visable roof line)
did not fall at freefall for 2.25 seconds then all your fellow CT'rs are wrong.

Yet I am told time and again that they have timed it....

So NIST says a point on the roof line fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds and they do not address the 8 seconds before that point moved in your paragraph or in relation to that point moving.....

I don't even know what you are trying to prove anymore.....


----------



## Capstone (May 13, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> So if (and that's a big if) the roof line (Because that is all they are revering to here, the visable roof line)
> did not fall at freefall for 2.25 seconds then all your fellow CT'rs are wrong.
> 
> Yet I am told time and again that they have timed it....
> ...



That's because you've badly misinterpreted the information from the NIST Q@A segment.

NIST's 3-stage video analysis involves a period of 5.4 seconds _purportedly_ starting "the instant the roofline began to *descend*" to where, paraphrasing John Gross, "it disappeared from view between surrounding buildings", which covered a descent of approximately 29 floors.


Along with David Chandler's frame by frame analysis, which beautifully exposes NIST's 5.4 second period as fraudulent, Gross's description can be seen and heard in the following video from 0.59 to 1:41.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvy7w139Hkc]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) by David Chandler - YouTube[/ame]

Chandler's exposure of the fraud is incidental in relation to Gross's description, by which I mean we can hypothetically disregard it and grant JG's description as valid for the purposes of our discussion.

The freefall period would then involve the _conjoined_ roofline's descent over an approximate area of 8 floors in the 2nd stage of a 3-stage _progressive_ collapse, during which the interacting building materials of the bearing walls provided zero physical resistance to the downward motion. 

In other words: a physical impossibility.

I don't know how to spell it out for you any more clearly...


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 13, 2014)

As I have tried to make you understand we are talking about a single point, actually a single pixel on the roof line....

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

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

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

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Capstone (May 13, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


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





Didn't you notice that the latter half of your copy and paste job is virtually identical to part of the Q&A segment I quoted *from NIST's website*, Ollie?

As for the first part, that "pixel" descended through all 3 stages of the 5.4 second sequence, *including stage 2's period of freefall!* 

Measuring "the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline" is tantamount to tracking that position on the relatively intact roofline from point A (the onset of descent) to point B (that position's and the rest of the roofline's disappearance from view). In terms of my earlier description, it's a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Capstone (May 13, 2014)

Another relevant video (keep your eyes on the center of that roofline now)... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4_8s-2Gmc]Clocking WTC7 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 14, 2014)

In that video the guy was sort of saying the building fell faster than free fall....

Now what is your argument again?


----------



## Capstone (May 14, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> In that video the guy was sort of saying the building fell faster than free fall....



No, what he's saying, in effect, is that the building was actually in freefall for longer than the 2.25 seconds admitted by NIST.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the 2.25 seconds, because, as I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, the perceived _magnitude_ of a physical impossibility is extraneous to its classification as a physical impossibility. 



SFC Ollie said:


> ...Now what is your argument again?



Let me put it into a neat little package for you:


*A)* Newton's Third Law of Motion entails that interacting materials create resistance as a consequence of their interaction.
*B)* By definition, a "Progressive Collapse" entails the interaction of various kinds of building materials from start to finish (from the internal steel to the external concrete).
*C)* Any period of freefall (read: zero resistance to the downward motion) during a proposed _Progressive Collapse_ would thereby violate the terms of both A and B, the latter _by virtue_ of the former.

SO, because of its conclusion that Building 7's demise constituted a "fire-induced progressive collapse" (despite its concession of freefall), NIST would have us believe that the laws of physics were violated on 9/11. 

Because of the above, denying the legitimacy of the _NIST Report_ is not only perfectly reasonable but called for...


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 14, 2014)

LOL. And still we don't address the invisible 8 seconds...

NIST Is a lot closer to truth than any of the CT loons.......


----------



## Capstone (May 14, 2014)

Jeebus H. Fucking Cripes.

I give up.


----------



## jillian (May 14, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?



what makes you believe a conspiracy theorist is dealing in reality?


----------



## SAYIT (May 14, 2014)

jillian said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?
> ...



They deal from a reality of their own making.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 14, 2014)

Did I just win the Internets? A truther gave up?


----------



## Capstone (May 14, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> ... A truther gave up?



Only on you, Ollie. Only on you.

"Truther"? -- Not if that involves any _theorizing_ on my part.

I'm all about objectively verifiable facts, which probably explains why I haven't been able to reconcile the officially-authorized _conspiracy theory_ with my conscience.

It's not  like I haven't tried...


----------



## Capstone (May 15, 2014)

Of course, in the process of vetting and weighing the soundness of various _theoretical_ models, when it comes to light that one of them unequivocally contradicts natural law, I _do_ feel justified in rejecting it. That doesn't involve any _theorizing_ on my part, though.

That's the beauty of being the sort of "truther" I am; it doesn't entail becoming a 'conspiracy theorist'.


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 16, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


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




not so ollie

nist said it freefell and corrected their official report to reflect it as well.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 16, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > As I have tried to make you understand we are talking about a single point, actually a single pixel on the roof line....
> ...



Ah Kookoo, please read the official report i posted again. Yes They said that a single pixel fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

And capy says that is an impossibility.

So you guys get your stories straight.....

Now what is it in the NIST report you want to correct again?


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




nope ollie, the problem is that you are too fucking dense to understand what cappy said.

do you even know how to properly measure how a building falls?  LOL

Do tell us.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 24, 2014)

I don't have to know. They have experts for that. They explained quite well how they measured a single pixel of the roofline in the videos as it moved.....

Would you like to talk about installing a tactical communication system that would cover the state of New york in less than 4 hours? That I could be called an expert at....


It's not that we don't have facts, it's just that you don't want them to be true.


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't have to know. They have experts for that. They explained quite well how they measured a single pixel of the roofline in the videos as it moved.....
> 
> Would you like to talk about installing a tactical communication system that would cover the state of New york in less than 4 hours? That I could be called an expert at....
> 
> ...




oh?

Ok so you admit you are incapable of debating with experts, therefore you are incapable of debating the matter at all since it requires expertise.

What kind iris?  Good luck with that.


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 24, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Another relevant video (keep your eyes on the center of that roofline now)...
> 
> Clocking WTC7 - YouTube




what were those naughty kids up to when the lights went out?








big bodda boom!


was there ever any doubt?  LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 24, 2014)

WOW you can see the floors crashing behind the facade exactly as i said they did....Thank you...

By the way I haven't seen any experts on here to debate with....


----------



## Rockland (May 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> By the way I haven't seen any experts on here to debate with....



Wait, I have KaKa on ignore.  Is he calling himself an expert now?


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 24, 2014)

Rockland said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > By the way I haven't seen any experts on here to debate with....
> ...




He thinks i can't debate with experts.....I don't know who he thinks the experts are i should debate with, none of them are on this board......What he fails to realize is they can't show me anything that I haven't already seen and have seen debunked. I've probably seen more truther videos than he has.......


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 24, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> WOW you can see the floors crashing behind the facade exactly as i said they did....Thank you...
> 
> By the way I haven't seen any experts on here to debate with....




and you can see all those explosions making them crash down behind the faced just like you said, a real pro demolition!




what were those naughty kids up to when the lights went out?








big bodda boom!


was there ever any doubt?  LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 24, 2014)

Rockland said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > By the way I haven't seen any experts on here to debate with....
> ...




after the beatings you had to endure, I dont blame you!


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 25, 2014)

Um koo koo....There is no recording or seismograph of any explosions at the time of collapse...

How did they make them silent?

Don't need an expert to ask that question.....Just have to check the facts....


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 25, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Um koo koo....There is no recording or seismograph of any explosions at the time of collapse...
> 
> How did they make them silent?
> 
> Don't need an expert to ask that question.....Just have to check the facts....




actualy there are several recordings of initial explosions, you are a victim of debunker propaganda.  

thermite cutters have very little noise since they operate like a cutting torch od'd on steroids.

They are nothing new NIST knew about them, no secret.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 25, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Um koo koo....There is no recording or seismograph of any explosions at the time of collapse...
> ...



Thermite cutters also leave behind evidence.
Show it to me...
Though you did first claim explosives...
Can you go to one story and stick with it?


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 25, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



yeh molten stuff, otherwise they are completely self consuming.

yes there are huge craters under the buildings.

There is not a "single" story, they arent simpletons.






cutting time is low milliseconds to several seconds adjustable.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 25, 2014)

Milliseconds to cut through steel beams? Really? You must really know more than most experts do...

Tell me, how did they prevent any of these from going off early with all those uncontrolled fires going for over 7 hours?


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 26, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Milliseconds to cut through steel beams? Really? You must really know more than most experts do...
> 
> Tell me, how did they prevent any of these from going off early with all those uncontrolled fires going for over 7 hours?




Thats why you cant debate with experts.

They have a housing built around em that protects em LMAO

That means its like in a tin can.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 26, 2014)

Koo koo, you are truly coo coo....You have offered zero prof of anything, just make up wilder shit as you go along....

Entertaining though....Keep it up.....


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 27, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Koo koo, you are truly coo coo....You have offered zero prof of anything, just make up wilder shit as you go along....
> 
> Entertaining though....Keep it up.....



even when you give some people a picture they are too fucking stupid to get it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 27, 2014)

We've seen your pictures, they do not show what you want them to show.


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 27, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> We've seen your pictures, they do not show what you want them to show.




oh?

seems you failed to mention that until you are cornered LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 27, 2014)

What cornered? I have facts you have opinion......... 

I'm sorry you can't see that..........

But someday you might bang your head on something and be cured...You can always hope....


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 27, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> What cornered? I have facts you have opinion.........
> 
> I'm sorry you can't see that..........
> 
> But someday you might bang your head on something and be cured...You can always hope....




for starters thats a lie, you have nothing more than conjecture and opinions and arent smart enough to know it.  name one fact you think you got lol


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 28, 2014)

Fact: 4 aircraft were hijacked.
Fact: no trace of controlled demolition has been found.
Fact: DNA from most passengers were recovered 
Fact: you have not one piece of physical evidence to say the official investigations are wrong.

And none of that is conjecture or opinion. Just simple facts.....


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 28, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fact: 4 aircraft were hijacked.
> Fact: no trace of controlled demolition has been found.
> Fact: DNA from most passengers were recovered
> Fact: you have not one piece of physical evidence to say the official investigations are wrong.
> ...



I asked for facts not bullshit.

so you think not finding controlled demolition is a fact? where would you find controlled demolition?  under your bed?

so what?  Does not mean they were flown into buildings, another worthless claim.

No DNA was found for the hijackers, passengers could be anything.

official investigations accuracy are not a facts


its pretty clear you are dealing with 1/10th of deck, you dont even know what a m,aterial fact is.

nice try want another?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (May 28, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Koo koo, you are truly coo coo....You have offered zero prof of anything, just make up wilder shit as you go along....
> ...



Even when you have photographic evidence, DNA of the plane passengers, testimony of actual engineers (real experts, not assholes who think they are experts) you still pee on my leg and try to tell me that It's raining.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (May 28, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Fact: 4 aircraft were hijacked.
> ...



Conspiracy nuts don't know dick and they are banking on the fact that no one else knows either. 

You aren't an expert in anything except for closing your eyes and yapping non-stop about what you pretend to know.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 28, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Fact: 4 aircraft were hijacked.
> ...



I gave you fact, and yes No evidence of controlled demolition is a fact. There is no physical evidence as there should be. There is no way to bring down buildings that size by any means of controlled Demolition and not leave physical evidence behind....

And yes they did find DNA evidence of the hijackers, it was turned over to the FBI, I believe I posted a link to that earlier.

Now if the only real investigation is not fact then tell me what is? What you want to be fact? I don't think so....

You have a bad mental problem, i suggest you get professional help.


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 28, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



dood you got shit coming out of every orifice in your body.

fine you want to go down that ignorant assed dead end rabbit hole, ok.

then show me the full itemized assessment of all test results validating your claim of no cd. 

they didnt have a baseline what are you talking about, thats not evidence.

yeh I am wasting my time to help tards get a clue


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 28, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




  psychologiststhink you are the raving lunar tick pal


_*Psychologists Say:  &#8216;Conspiracy Theorists&#8217; SANE, Government Dupes CRAZY and Hostile.*
Laurie Manwell, Univ of Guelph; anti-conspiracy people are unable to  think clearly due to their inability to process information that  conflicts with pre-existing beliefs.
 Univ of Buffalo Prof Steven Hoffman; anti-conspiracy people prone to  using irrational mechanisms (such as the &#8220;CT&#8221; label) to avoid personal  conflict.
Extreme irrationality of those who attack &#8220;CT's&#8221; exposed by Ginna  Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed  article
Now pro-conspiracy voices are more numerous and rational than  anti-conspiracy ones and anti-CT people are like hostile, paranoid  cranks._


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 29, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Are you over 12 years old?
I'll give you one shot, Give me one concrete piece of physical evidence. Just one, and we can continue. Other than that STFU..........


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 29, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



evidence was already posted and you FAILED to understand it. You have already proven you are a dumb ass.  THere is no reason what so ever to believe you will understand any evidence that is ever posted.  

BANG


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 29, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Bang? You get your cap gun out?

You have posted nothing but opinion of people looking to make a buck....
Have a nice life.......If that's even possible for one afraid of life.....


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 29, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




lie, even my fucking dog with an iq about 3 can count higher than zero, yes you have a marvelous day.  if there is such a thing take up a subject you have a little clue about before you argue with the big boys. 



Tard.


----------



## SFC Ollie (May 29, 2014)

Wow.....

And before you add another stupid post and think you won something, I'm unsubscribing now....

Once again, have a nice life.....


----------



## SAYIT (May 29, 2014)

KokomoJojo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Big boys? You?


----------



## KokomoJojo (May 29, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wow.....
> 
> And before you add another stupid post and think you won something, I'm unsubscribing now....
> 
> Once again, have a nice life.....




Everyone who argued against you did.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Jun 1, 2014)

ok another brain dead debunker down! LOL

Got any engineering types in here that want to support the official story, bring it on. LMAO


Meantime here is a pretty picture for ya all to see if youins can figure out what could possibly be happening here.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> I've explored a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories and have found many to be silly and simply untrue (when you look at all sides of the argument).
> 
> However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:
> 
> ...



You don't have to dig very deep for an answer to that one: 'Pull it' isn't a reference to demolition.

Here's your first clue: The conversation was between Silverstein and the FDNY Commissoner. *So if 'pull it' were an order to demolish the building, the folks that made the decision to 'pull' would be the FDNY. *And they don't demolish skyscrapers. They never have. Robbing the 'demolition' narrative of even a scrap of plausibility.

However.....per Silverstein, 'pull it' meant pull the fire fighting effort. And that's something that the FDNY can absolutely do. And a decision the FDNY verifiable made, deciding that fire and structural damage in WTC 7 were so severe that they evacuated the area and let it come down.

It also provides an explanation that is infinitely more plausible than the FDNY demolishing a burning building. Plus, its backed up by the FDNY who used the term 'pulled' over and over again to refer to abandoning the fire fighting effort of WTC 7.

Does that help? There are about a dozen more ways the 'pull it = demolition' interpretation just doesn't work. But those are the two most obvious.



> When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?



The official explanation is that the collapse initiated on the 13th floor at column 79 due to fire. Nature didn't have much to do with it.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > ...people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.
> ...



Your timing is off. First, the Penthouse began collapsing into the WTC 7 about 20 seconds before the facade collapsed. Falling fully into the WTC about 7 seconds before the WTC 7 facade fell. That demonstrates, undeniably, that the central structure of the WTC 7 was collapsing before the facade came down. So your time line on the collapse is off by about an order of magnitude.....as you only count the last portion of the collapse. And ignore everything before it.

Second, the NIST report indicates that the collapse initiated on floor 13. So if floor 13 came down, the floors above it would collapse. Why then the facade above floor 13 falling be 'physically impossible'? Your assessment fails again.

And of course, the collapse initiated in virtual silence. And there's no such thing as silent explosives. So it clearly wasn't bombs. Making the NIST explanation the only one left standing.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 27, 2014)

> WTC 7 had a bit of damage on its south end from towers 1 & 2, but when it collapsed it did not tip to that side (as one would suspect). Instead, it fell straight down. Firefighters were telling people to back away (there are video records of this) because the building "was about to come down". If fire alone bringing down a modern skyscraper is an extremely unlikely event that has never happened before in human history prior to 9/11, how in God's name were the firefighters - ie not building engineers - so confident and accurate in predicting the collapse? These are just honest questions I'm asking.



Because the FDNY had been watching it burn for hours. They put a transit on the building and measured its leaning, bending and buckling. They actually found a bulge forming on one corner. Fire fighters that went near the structure could hear it groaning. They're were pretty certain the building was coming down hours before it did. So they pulled their fire fighting effort and evacuated the area in advance of the collapse.

And they were right. 

Oh, and there were building engineers on site. Though none of the FDNY accounts of their assessment of WTC 7 include mention of them, they almost certainly consulted with them. As these same engineers had anticipated the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. So they'd earned a little credibility.

If you'd like direct quotes of all the FDNY folks who made this assessment, I'd be happy to provide them. Most are part of the oral histories collected by the NY times in the months after the tragedy. Or interviews with firefighters in 'FireHouse' magazine.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 28, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > gee you sound just like the last guy....
> ...



If the collapse of the facade initiated on the lower half of the building, some amount free fall is entirely possible. In fact, probable. You've fallen into a common pitfall that ensnares many a conspiracy theorist: arbitrarily declaring that something is 'impossible' as the basis of your conspiracy.

The obvious problem with the 'veracity' of that process being.....typing the word 'impossible' doesn't actually make it so.


----------



## Penelope (Aug 29, 2014)

I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2014)

Penelope said:


> I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.


false !that would be you and all the other  uneducated nut sacks .


----------



## Penelope (Aug 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.
> ...



Wrong I already know deep down it was, so I don't have to convince myself of anything. All you have some wacko 19 arab hijacker story and the NIST report, that is full of baloney.


----------



## Penelope (Aug 29, 2014)

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and  down it came"  Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2014)

Penelope said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


what you know is called rationalizing.
in reality you know jack shit because all you've seen is conspiracy videos and visited conspiracy sites. you  either cannot or will not  even make an attempt to be objective.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2014)

wild cARD IS TOO CHICKEN SHIT TO EVEN DEBATE THE MATTER!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2014)

Penelope said:


> I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and  down it came"  Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.


SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..


----------



## Penelope (Aug 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and  down it came"  Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.
> ...



No I think you are rationalizing. I have based my opinion of what I have read, not what I have been told. Think how dumb it'd be if we still believed in Santa Clause.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2014)

Penelope said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


ah but you do..in the form of conspiracy myth. 
what  you read was on conspiracy sites yes? no?


----------



## Penelope (Aug 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not really, I researched the people involved on my own. The only thing those sites gave were names, and I didn't agree with all they had to say, but it was very easy to put two and two together.  First one needs motive, ability and access.  The PNAC and Clean Break was just the clincher. Also when someone had predicted it in the early 90's, its just hard to put two and two together.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 30, 2014)

Penelope said:


> I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.



I'm just reviewing the facts and evidence. Which, of course, you fastidiously avoid.

Which speaks volumes.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 30, 2014)

Penelope said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Our positions are based on the evidence. Yours on what you 'know, deep down'. There's a difference. You won't have a debate of evidence. Even now you're avoiding even mention of it. You want a debate of feelings.

And your feelings don't trump our facts and evidence. Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 30, 2014)

Penelope said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



I've discussed these issues with you, P. And you haven't researched a thing. You told us how the PNAC document tried to justify the Patriot Act. But that was pure bullshit. As the PNAC document was written before the Bush presidency, before 911, before the Patriot Act. And makes no reference to the Patriot Act, nor could it. Rendering your narrative physically impossible.

Which you'd know if you'd ever read the PNAC document. *Instead you repeat what you were told to think about it.* Without thought. Without question. And without ever having read the source material.

And of course, when presented with the legion of conspiracy killing holes in your narrative, you ignore them, pretend they don't exist, and make vague reference to what you 'know deep down'. Which isn't an argument.

Its an excuse for one. And you know what, P? Your process of belief over evidence, feeling over fact, repeating over research......is embarrassingly common among truthers. Which is why they're usually so laughably easy to debunk.


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 30, 2014)

"Your process of belief over evidence, feeling over fact, repeating over research......is embarrassingly common among truthers. Which is why they're usually so laughably easy to debunk."

Right, .... I for one smelled something rotten about this whole scene from the very start.  First with the "collapse" events of the two towers and then WTC7 "collapsing" as it did.  on viewing the newsreel of the event the building came straight down for a period of time and later, through scientific analysis was found to be free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec.
now this is significant in that in order to have free fall acceleration, 
there isn't any resistance at all under the falling mass, and note that the whole visible bit, that is the North & West walls of the building fall in unison.  how is this the product of fire + chaotic damage from rubble thrown by the "collapsing" WTC 1, & 2 ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2014)

Penelope said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Your process of belief over evidence, feeling over fact, repeating over research......is embarrassingly common among truthers. Which is why they're usually so laughably easy to debunk."
> 
> Right, .... I for one smelled something rotten about this whole scene from the very start.  First with the "collapse" events of the two towers and then WTC7 "collapsing" as it did.  on viewing the newsreel of the event the building came straight down for a period of time and later, through scientific analysis was found to be free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec.
> now this is significant in that in order to have free fall acceleration,
> there isn't any resistance at all under the falling mass, and note that the whole visible bit, that is the North & West walls of the building fall in unison.  how is this the product of fire + chaotic damage from rubble thrown by the "collapsing" WTC 1, & 2 ?


only a portion of the north face of wtc 7 was in freefall for 2.25 sec which proves nothing except that for in that  tiny fraction of time it struck nothing it's not statistically or forensically important.
however the lack of any accelerants ,thermite, det cord  etc. is...


----------



## SAYIT (Aug 31, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Your process of belief over evidence, feeling over fact, repeating over research......is embarrassingly common among truthers. Which is why they're usually so laughably easy to debunk."
> 
> Right, .... I for one smelled something rotten about this whole scene from the very start.  First with the "collapse" events of the two towers and then WTC7 "collapsing" as it did.  on viewing the newsreel of the event the building came straight down for a period of time and later, through scientific analysis was found to be free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec.
> now this is significant in that in order to have free fall acceleration,
> there isn't any resistance at all under the falling mass, and note that the whole visible bit, that is the North & West walls of the building fall in unison.  how is this the product of fire + chaotic damage from rubble thrown by the "collapsing" WTC 1, & 2 ?



Got it!
So you "smelled something rotten about this whole scene" (9/11) and went about the business of "proving" your suspicion by ignoring facts and reality and accepting only that - lame as it is - which agrees with you. Here's the test: Try applying the same level of skepticism to your "proof" that you do to the official reports/


----------



## n0spam4me (Aug 31, 2014)

how about facts such as the impossibility of the airliners actually being real airliners.... the fact that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at FREE FALL acceleration .... the fact that three steel framed buildings WTC1, 2 & 7 were completely destroyed while other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not destroyed.  what about the total lack of documentary evidence in the form of photographs of the site with time/date & location info for each pix?  what about the total lack of accounting for any of the 4 aircraft, how much of ea aircraft was recovered and if so, how was that documented?  did the authorities test for incendiaries or explosives at ground zero, and if so, how is that documented? 

THINK! before it becomes illegal!


----------



## Skylar (Sep 4, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> how about facts such as the impossibility of the airliners actually being real airliners....




Um, that's not a 'fact'. That's just you ignore overwhelming evidence again. See, you keep confusing your own willful ignorance with evidence. And they aren't the same thing.



> the fact that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at FREE FALL acceleration .



More problems: the building began its collapse about 19 seconds before you admit it began. The penthouse began collapsing into the WTC 7 long before the facade fell. And fully plummeted into the center of the WTC 7 about 6 to 7 seconds the facade fell. Demonstrating undeniably and unambiguously that the structure of the WTC 7 was collapsing long before the facade fell.

And you ignore it all, pretending it never happened. Rendering your 'impossible' yet another case of your own hapless denial.

And of course, there are the litany of reasons why the bomb theory comically fails. Epically and utterly. Yet you predictably ignore them all, can't resolve any of them, won't question any portion of your conspiracy, and won't think too hard about it. Any one of these issues renders your conspiracy ludicrously unlikely. And you can't resolve any of them.



> ... the fact that three steel framed buildings WTC1, 2 & 7 were completely destroyed while other buildings in the same complex were damaged but not destroyed.



WTC 1, 2 and 7 were by far the largest, being 110 stories, 110 stories and 47 stories respectively. The tallest building in the WTC plaza after WTC 7 was only 9 stories tall. All high rise structures fell. None of the low rise structures did.

Which, of course, you know. But really hope we don't.



> what about the total lack of documentary evidence in the form of photographs of the site with time/date & location info for each pix?



There were pictures and video galore taken. You simply ignore any of it that doesn't match your conspiracy. There's a stark difference between photos not being taken and you *ignoring* the photos that were taken. You can't tell the difference.

*We can.* Remember, and this point is very important: you don't know what you're talking about. You're simply repeating debunked conspiracy theories verbatim without actually doing any research.



> what about the total lack of accounting for any of the 4 aircraft, how much of ea aircraft was recovered and if so, how was that documented?



Who says there was a 'total lack of accounting'? You do, citing yourself. And your source sucks, as you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a page dedicated to flight 93 complete with flight recorders, flight path studies, gallery of photos of debris from the NTSB and Department of Justice.

Sources and Detailed Information - Flight 93 National Memorial U.S. National Park Service 

But there was a 'total lack of accounting', huh? You're clueless.



> Yet you didn't know about them because you've never did the authorities test for incendiaries or explosives at ground zero, and if so, how is that documented?
> 
> THINK! before it becomes illegal!



Dust samples at the WTC were tested. There was no residue of explosives, incendiaries or any of the other compounds your conspiracy relies upon. This in an analysis so thorough and precise that it was able to detect prescription medication from the WTC pharmacy. But not your thousands upon thousand upon thousands of bombs or incediary devices?

Um, no.

And 'think'? *You won't question your own conspiracy. *You refuse to think about any of the conspiracy crippling holes in your claims.

1) There were uncontrolled fires within the WTC 7. This eliminates even the possibility of the use of explosive demolition.....as an system of demolition would have also been on fire. Charges would have detonated or been reduced to bubbling pools of popping goo, wires connecting the charges would have been destroyed, timers or transmitters or receivers would have been destroyed.

2) Worse, the collapse of WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence. And there are no such thing as 'silent explosives'.

3) There were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. Oh, there were twisted girders. There were deformed girders. But there were no _cut _girders. And explosive demolition would have produced thousands upon thousands of them.

4) There was no residue of explosives in dust samples taken from ground zero. This in an analysis so precise it detected medication from the WTC pharmacy. But not the thousands and thousands of charges used to bring the buildling down?

5) There was never any apparatus of explosives ever found before during or after the collapse. Not one charge, not one inch of blasting wire, not one transmitter, not one cutter, kicker, not anything. These buildings weren't museums. They were regularly used, inspected, cleaned, maintained. There is essentially zero chance that the thousands and thousands of bombs would have been missed. Especially when....

6) The WTC plaza was inspected by the port authority bomb squad only a week before the collapse. Neither they nor their bomb sniffing dogs found even one charge. Despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands.

7) The FDNY correctly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 fire and structural damage hours before it came down. They measured its slow structural failure, its leaning, bulging and buckling. They put a transit on the building and by the afternoon were reasonably certain that it was coming down from the fires. Fires which grew hotter as the day went on.

8) There was an investigation by the NIST. And they determined that the FDNY was correct: it was fire that brought the building down.

Not only can't you resolve any of these conspiracy killing inconsistencies between your claims and reality,* you refuse to address them, or even acknowledge they exist. *You're not a thinker. You're a mindless repeater. And you're reciting the conspiracy narrative you've been told to think without thought or question.

No thank you, Truther. Your story is just an awful explanation. And even you can't make it work.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

"Dust samples at the WTC were tested. There was no residue of explosives, incendiaries or any of the other compounds your conspiracy relies upon. This in an analysis so thorough and precise that it was able to detect prescription medication from the WTC pharmacy. But not your thousands upon thousand upon thousands of bombs or incediary devices?"

Documentation please .......


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "Dust samples at the WTC were tested. There was no residue of explosives, incendiaries or any of the other compounds your conspiracy relies upon. This in an analysis so thorough and precise that it was able to detect prescription medication from the WTC pharmacy. But not your thousands upon thousand upon thousands of bombs or incediary devices?"
> 
> Documentation please .......



Right after you provide me with documentation that the buildings collapsed to 'street level', that there was C4 in the WTC plaza, that there were any cuts to any girders consistent with explosive demolition, that there was even one bomb in the WTC plaza, even an inch of blasting cord, or any apparatus of explosives.

Provide that documentation, and I'll be happy to show you the results of the microscopic analysis of WTC dust by Nicholas Petraco of the New York Microscopic Society presented in May 2003.

But demanding 'documentation' when you can provide none is you failing your own standards.

And of course, your rout from the conspiracy killing holes in your bomb theory was rather.....obvious. Keep running.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> how about facts such as the impossibility of the airliners actually being real airliners....



Please provide documentation for that claim.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > how about facts such as the impossibility of the airliners actually being real airliners....
> ...



Oh, Spammy can never back up anything he says. Its everyone else that has to provide documentation. 
And when you do, he summarily ignores it all for no particular reason. 

FDNY fire fighter Fred Marsilla affirming that the debris pile was 15 stories tall?* Ignored.* 

A gallery of pictures of debris from the planes, submitted in a criminal court as evidence? *Ignored.* 

The ASCE report affirming the damage in the Pentagon was consistent with a passenger jet, even marking where in the Pentagon the bodies of Flight 77 passengers was located? *Ignored.* 

Spam offers us a conspiracy based on absolutely nothing. All while ignoring overwhelming evidence.....for no reason.

You can't teach that.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

Just for the benefit of anybody who is still curious, Please do check out any of the videos that show the south wall of the south tower being hit by what is alleged to be "FLT175"  also observe the nature of the "collapse" events for WTC1,2 & 7 .... note the uniformity of the event as if it had been arranged that each and every connection within the building would fail exactly on time in sequence so as to produce the observed result.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Just for the benefit of anybody who is still curious, Please do check out any of the videos that show the south wall of the south tower being hit by what is alleged to be "FLT175"



You are referring to the following live video? You continue to demand others provide substantiation (which you blithely ignore) while making absurd claims and charges and providing absolutely nothing in support of them. Typically pathetic 9/11 CT loon.

2nd Plane Hitting WTC - LIVE News Coverage - 9 11 - YouTube


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the benefit of anybody who is still curious, Please do check out any of the videos that show the south wall of the south tower being hit by what is alleged to be "FLT175"
> ...




How about this one, NOW do you get it?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



He just posted 8 and half minutes of impacts from more than a dozen angles. And all of which contradict your narrative. And here's the unedited, raw footage of the Herzakhani video. 


And it matches all the other cameras and the eye witness testimony. Remember, there are literally thousands of eye witnesses. Who saw the plane impact, including everyone in that video who saw what you claim never happened. *Here are 43 different views of the South Tower impact. *

_
You're claiming that every single one is fake?_ That every of the thousands of eye witnesses is fake? C'mon, this happened in the middle of New York, while virtually the whole world and the whole city was watching. 

And you're still claiming it never happened? C'mon...really?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 5, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



I get that you are a flaming loon, Princess. That bit of silliness is only the latest of what has become a litany of thoroughly debunked BS that you just can't get past:

Two cases of 8220 truther 8221 nonsense undone by photo video tech expertise Skeptical Software Tools


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 6, 2014)

so you looked, but did not see, I'm sorry .... I tried to show you, 
BTW:  what compels you to post as you do, you could simply leave the conspiracy freaks alone and just go fishing or something.... what is your motivation?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 6, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> so you looked, but did not see, I'm sorry .... I tried to show you,
> BTW:  what compels you to post as you do, you could simply leave the conspiracy freaks alone and just go fishing or something.... what is your motivation?



Says the person that just ignored 43 different recordings of the south tower being hit by flight 175, along with every of the thousands upon thousands of eye witnesses to the event, and every picture of the debris of the planes.

Again, Spammy.....just because you ignore overwhelming evidence that contradicts you doesn't mean that we can't see it. 

Which is why you fail.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 6, 2014)

Penelope said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



So basically you are admitting that we have the results of professional investigators, eyewitnesses, and first responders, and you have nothing but your gut feeling. Good job wacko.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 7, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> so you looked, but did not see, I'm sorry .... I tried to show you,
> BTW:  what compels you to post as you do, you could simply leave the conspiracy freaks alone and just go fishing or something.... what is your motivation?


there it is .....the twoofer fallback position !
instead of admitting they're wrong they do the old nut two step!


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > so you looked, but did not see, I'm sorry .... I tried to show you,
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > so you looked, but did not see, I'm sorry .... I tried to show you,
> ...


It helps to prove you are right BEFORE claiming others are wrong. You fail consistently:
"No planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001." - NoSpAm


----------



## Skylar (Sep 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > so you looked, but did not see, I'm sorry .... I tried to show you,
> ...



"Anything that doesn't ape the conspiracy becomes part of it". 

Conspiracy theorists have been polishing that turd since Lincoln's assassination.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 8, 2014)

Skylar said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


I'm fairly sure it's even older than that.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 13, 2014)

to cap off this bit of total madness, please note that the alleged "FLT175" would have had to penetrate the wall of the WTC tower and overcome the resistance of the wall, + floor trusses ( etc.... ) and go nose to tail in less than 0.37 sec ..... good trick ... no?
HEAVY MAGIC!


----------



## Skylar (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> to cap off this bit of total madness, please note that the alleged "FLT175" would have had to penetrate the wall of the WTC tower and overcome the resistance of the wall, + floor trusses ( etc.... ) and go nose to tail in less than 0.37 sec ..... good trick ... no?
> HEAVY MAGIC!



Yeah, I'm gonna go with Leslie Robertson, the architect who designed the WTC 1 and 2 and his assessment that the building absolutely could have collapsed under the conditions of 911 over some random guy on the internet who watched a youtube video once and thinks he knows better.

Oh, and you still claiming that *every* video of the south tower being hit, every camcorder, every live feed was faked? Do you have any idea how stupidly complicated and insanely elaborate your conspiracy is? How many thousands upon thousands of people would have to be in on it, most of them regular folks who just spontaneously decided to become co-conspirators in mass murder, who all miraculously maintained perfect secrecy for 13 years and counting?

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? You should probably look it up, because its cutting your conspiracy to ribbons.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

See post # 69 in 
*Why 911 Lies are easire to believe than 911 TRUTH *


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> See post # 69 in
> *Why 911 Lies are easire to believe than 911 TRUTH *


that easier folks!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > See post # 69 in
> ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...




SO did you read  it, or? & do you have an opinion you would like to share?
What we are up against is nothing short of full-on warfare, that is psychological warfare,
with the help of the mainstream media, the power mad warmonger pigs are screwing with peoples minds.  Whatever happened to LOGIC & COMMON SENSE?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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


don't blame the rest of us because you don't have either one.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



Gone, most people just want to sit back and believe everything the gov says, they no longer say this makes no sense, and are just plum too lazy to do any extra investigation of their own. So obvious it was not 19 Muslim hijackers I can't believe anyone believes that.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 16, 2014)

Penelope said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Most people have heard and/or read at least some of what the "Truther" Movement is shoveling - such as NoSpAmmy's "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "missiles" were used to attack the Pentagon - and found these unsubstantiated scenarios to be so ludicrous and so absurd that they were and continue to be forced to accept the official version of 9/11 as the only logical explanation.
What humors me is the pompous pronouncements of peeps like you and NoSpAmmy who post all manner of silly, unsubstantiated alternatives to the official US gov't reports, demand documentation from others, yet are adamantly unwilling to post a shred of support from your "investigations."
Rather than requiring others to "investigate" your particular lunacy, why not just posts links to it? After all, if you really want others to agree with your POV you'll have to do better than insist it is something more real than the previous 13 years of BS which your "Truther" Movement has so far cooked up.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 16, 2014)

The fact that "FLT175" ( or shall I more properly say the alleged "FLT175" ) is seen penetrating a wall like a hot knife through butter.  WTC7 is observed falling at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, & both the Shanksville & Pentagon "crash sites" are a total JOKE, and people are still clinging to the idea that suicidal hijackers caused all the death & destruction on 9/11/2001...... 

whatever ........


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> The fact that "FLT175" ( or shall I more properly say the alleged "FLT175" ) is seen penetrating a wall like a hot knife through butter.  WTC7 is observed falling at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, & both the Shanksville & Pentagon "crash sites" are a total JOKE, and people are still clinging to the idea that suicidal hijackers caused all the death & destruction on 9/11/2001......
> 
> whatever ........



Most people have heard and/or read at least some of what the "Truther" Movement is shoveling - such as NoSpAmmy's "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "missiles" were used to attack the Pentagon - and found these unsubstantiated scenarios to be so ludicrous and so absurd that they were and continue to be forced to accept the official version of 9/11 as the only logical explanation.
What humors me is the pompous pronouncements of peeps like NoSpAmmy and Penelope who post all manner of silly, unsubstantiated alternatives to the official US gov't reports, demand documentation from others, yet are adamantly unwilling to post a shred of support from your "investigations."
Rather than requiring others to "investigate" your particular lunacy, why not just posts links to it? After all, if you really want others to agree with your POV you'll have to do better than insist it is something more real than the previous 13 years of BS which your "Truther" Movement has so far cooked up.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 16, 2014)

"unsubstantiated scenarios" ..... Please note, there is NO that is Zip Zero NADA
NOTHING that accounts for the alleged airliners crashed in 4 separate locations on 9/11/2001, there are misc pix of aircraft bits, but exactly how much of each aircraft was recovered? was it ever weighed, measured, documented?  where is it?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "unsubstantiated scenarios" ..... Please note, there is NO that is Zip Zero NADA
> NOTHING that accounts for the alleged airliners crashed in 4 separate locations on 9/11/2001, there are misc pix of aircraft bits, but exactly how much of each aircraft was recovered? was it ever weighed, measured, documented?  where is it?



You mean nothing you will accept as proof because millions of people have conspired to bring down the 3 WTC buildings, slam a passenger jet into the Pentagon and, just for good measure, crash another into a remote field in PA, after which they managed to completely control the aftermath and command complete silence from all involved. Yeah, as already mentioned ... most people have heard and/or read at least some of what the "Truther" Movement is shoveling - such as NoSpAmmy's "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "missiles" were used to attack the Pentagon - and found these unsubstantiated scenarios to be so ludicrous and so absurd that they were and continue to be forced to accept the official version of 9/11 as the only logical explanation.
In other words, thanks to you the "Truther" Movement is now just a shadow of its former self with only the t-shirt and DVD hawkers (Gage, Jones) and a few losers (NoSpammy, Penelope) still hanging around.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 17, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "unsubstantiated scenarios" ..... Please note, there is NO that is Zip Zero NADA
> ...



See post 89 in 
*Why 911 Lies are easire to believe than 911 TRUTH*


----------



## daws101 (Sep 17, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> The fact that "FLT175" ( or shall I more properly say the alleged "FLT175" ) is seen penetrating a wall like a hot knife through butter.  WTC7 is observed falling at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, & both the Shanksville & Pentagon "crash sites" are a total JOKE, and people are still clinging to the idea that suicidal hijackers caused all the death & destruction on 9/11/2001......
> 
> whatever ........


thanks for showcasing your complete ignorance of  just about everything 
flt 175  :


----------



## Penelope (Sep 17, 2014)

To live in denial and closed mind is worst than thinking , the 19 Muslim hijackers makes no sense on a road to nowhere, oh wait that's why we went to war with Iraq, what was I thinking. !!!!!!!!!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 17, 2014)

Penelope said:


> To live in denial and closed mind is worst than thinking , the 19 Muslim hijackers makes no sense on a road to nowhere, oh wait that's why we went to war with Iraq, what was I thinking. !!!!!!!!!


you rationalise, that's not thinking


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 18, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > To live in denial and closed mind is worst than thinking , the 19 Muslim hijackers makes no sense on a road to nowhere, oh wait that's why we went to war with Iraq, what was I thinking. !!!!!!!!!
> ...



The alleged airliner wreckage shown in a picture in one of your previous posts, what ever happened to all that stuff, was it taken to a hanger ( or for that matter anyplace ) for examination? was it measured, weighed, inspected, and if so by who and where is the report on that activity?  DOCUMENTATION constitutes more than a few random snapshots.  Accounting for the aircraft is what should have been done, but wasn't and the reason is simple, there were no airliners!


----------



## Penelope (Sep 18, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > To live in denial and closed mind is worst than thinking , the 19 Muslim hijackers makes no sense on a road to nowhere, oh wait that's why we went to war with Iraq, what was I thinking. !!!!!!!!!
> ...



No all one needs to do is follow the players, started in early 90's. Also there are several reasons, that  some neocons in the US gov and Zionist did this terrible act and blamed it on the Muslims , Al Qaida, or is it SA????


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 18, 2014)

Penelope said:


> To live in denial and closed mind is worst than thinking , the 19 Muslim hijackers makes no sense on a road to nowhere, oh wait that's why we went to war with Iraq, what was I thinking. !!!!!!!!!




Penelope----you have,,   AGAIN,    said nothing.      "it makes no sense"------
    ----"makes no sense"???         why not?      It is because it is so
    consistent with Islamic custom and ideology YOUR reason that it
    "makes no sense"?     Or have you been told----"just describe those
    the Islamic ideology and history and tell your audience "it makes no
    sense" -------you will always be right because islam does not make
    sense to the minds of educated americans


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 18, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > To live in denial and closed mind is worst than thinking , the 19 Muslim hijackers makes no sense on a road to nowhere, oh wait that's why we went to war with Iraq, what was I thinking. !!!!!!!!!
> ...



This is truly what it gets down to, the battle for hearts & minds,
given an airliner crash that most closely resembles "B movie special effects"
+ three steel framed skyscrapers completely destroyed ( as in controlled demolition )
WHY should anyone still embrace the fairy tale about 19 suicidal Arabs?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 18, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 18, 2014)

"GIANT BILLOWS of white smoke .... rising to the sky- "

and white smoke is indicative of THERMITE at work.

also, exactly how long did you get to view "FLT175"
was it a second, more or less or maybe 2 or 3 seconds?
really, how long does it take to acquire a visual on a target and positively ID it?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 18, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "GIANT BILLOWS of white smoke .... rising to the sky- "
> 
> and white smoke is indicative of THERMITE at work.
> 
> ...


bullshit, 

The color of smoke is caused by a physical process, known as the Tyndall effect. It depends on the size of the particles in it. The very smallest, as from cigarettes, is blue. Larger particles, as from cigar smoke, give white smoke. Still larger particles give you blacksmoke.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 19, 2014)

smoke color is not totally dependent on particle size, the composition of the material being burned is also a factor.  Aluminum oxide is white.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 19, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> smoke color is not totally dependent on particle size, the composition of the material being burned is also a factor.  Aluminum oxide is white.


so is the smoke from a grass fire....your smoke ploy is another false comparison..


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 20, 2014)

are you saying that there was a lot of grass inside the WTC towers?

Wow man..... .roll another one 
Herbie


----------



## Skylar (Sep 26, 2014)

> "GIANT BILLOWS of white smoke .... rising to the sky- "
> 
> and white smoke is indicative of THERMITE at work.
> 
> ...



Then why wasn't a single thermite reaction ever observed? Thermite reactions are so insanely, ludicrously obvious they are used in fire works. You can permenantly damage your eyes by looking directly at one. Once ignited, thermite can't be put out. It provides its own oxygen. And your theory requires thousands upon thousands of such reactions. If we include WTC 1 and 2, tens of thousands, with about about 80% of them on the OUTSIDE of the building. 

*Yet, nothing. Not one such reaction ever observed, not one cut on any girder ever found. Not one.* And your theory requires tens of thousands of them. How do you resolve these obtuse contradiction between the 'thermite' theory and reality? You pretend it doesn't exist. But why would we ignore what you do? 

There is no reason. Ending your conspiracy yet again.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > "GIANT BILLOWS of white smoke .... rising to the sky- "
> >
> > and white smoke is indicative of THERMITE at work.
> >
> ...


he ignored the fact  that  lots of burning material make white smoke..


----------



## Skylar (Sep 26, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > "GIANT BILLOWS of white smoke .... rising to the sky- "
> ...



And the fact that there wasn't a single thermite reaction observed on 911. Despite his theory requiring tens of thousands of them.

That's the problem I have with most truthers: they won't question their own bullshit. They won't think too hard about it. And when presented with theory killing holes in their own beliefs, they double down on cognitive dissonance and simply pretend that no such contradiction ever existed.

So they have mindless belief in a conspiracy for which no evidence exists and overwhelming evidence contradicts. And a refusal to ask any question or even think about the truther conspiracy they are apeing.

That take a special kind of gullible.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 27, 2014)

Skylar said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



There was something emitting sparks and dripping from a corner of one of the towers right before its "collapse".
however, with or without THERMITE or any other named accelerant or incendiary/explosive,  the fact remains that in order to do what was seen on that day, that is the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7,  there would have to be some additional source of energy other than simply aircraft crash & fire.  In order to achieve what was done in 9/11/2001 for both towers, ALL of the internal connections would have to fail exactly on time as if to a schedule.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


false the other energy was in the towers themselves  What Is a Joule with pictures


----------



## daws101 (Sep 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 the sparks you are yammering about were actually melted bits of anything made of plastic that were pushed into a huge pile and like all liquids will  will drip
sorry spammy, but sparks don't drip ..


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> There was something emitting sparks and dripping from a corner of one of the towers right before its "collapse".



Show us the thermite reaction. These reactions aren't subtle. They're so bright they can permanently damage your eyes if you look directly at them. They're used in fireworks. You simply can't miss them. Show us, don't tell us.

It should be obscenely easy for you, if your claims are valid. Your absurd little conspiracy requires tens of thousands of such reactions. *Yet you can't show us one.* And remember, they can't be put out as they provide their own oxygen. So as the tower was collapsing, these thermite reactions would have been visible everywhere. After the towers had collapsed, they would have been visible everywhere. 

*Yet there wasn't a single thermite reaction ever found. Before, during or after the collapse. Not one.*

And of course, the outer panels, supporting 50% of the load energy of each tower were exposed to open air. Meaning that anyone simply looking at the towers would have seen thousands upon thousands of thermite reactions as they cut through the building's outer panels. *Yet not one was ever seen.*

Nor was a single cut girder ever found. Despite your conspiracy requiring almost all the girders would have been cut. Nor was there any thermite canister attached to any girder after the collapse. And your theory requires tens of thousands of them.

Every place your conspiracy insists evidence should be.*.there isn't.* Every time your conspiracy insists we should find evidence,* we find nothing. *Your theory doesn't work. It fails every test of evidence, logic or reason. Nor can you resolve any of the obtuse, obvious and unavoidable inconsistencies between your thermite theory and reality.

Your explanation is simply awful. And even you can't make it work.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not so fast.
Your entire premise - that 9/11 was a controlled CT - REQUIRES some sort of explosive yet you consistently fail to provide any proof of their existence because - drum roll, please - there is none!
Case closed ... again.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So the action observed as the towers & 7 "collapsed" isn't sufficient evidence to make the statement that all three were controlled demolitions(?) at least to you..... however to many of us who understand not only the basic physics problem here but the one of probability of the events happening exactly as they did.
The taxpayer funded report on the towers shows clearly the level of fraud involved here
the statement "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"  is totally mad!  There are a multitude of alternatives that could have happened and indeed what is the most probable alternative?


----------



## aris2chat (Sep 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



All the conspiracies have been debunked online, in books and a number of documentaries.  Experts explaining in detail what could and could not happen.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Has anyone bothered to examine the fundamental physics involved in these explanations and ask if said explanations ring true?  In the "documentaries" by the History channel, the Discovery channel, Popular Mechanics ( etc.... ) there are huge mistakes or possibly intentional fraud published as if it was the most perfect thing possible.  REALLY people? 
A scene with a single steel beam supported at the ends and loaded and then heated as a demonstration of the alleged failure mode of the steel in the WTC towers, ignoring completely the fact that in order to produce the result that happened with the towers, the steel would have to have been heated up by more fire than was possible, because many office fires have happened in skyscrapers before and burned for much longer, however no structural failure happened.  What magic brought about not only structural failure, but in a manner that resulted in the total destruction of both towers?
and that is but one failure of the "documentaries" to properly explain WHY things happened as they did on 9/11/2001.


----------



## aris2chat (Sep 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Metal did not have melt just be heated enough to weaken it, the stress from the impact and weight of the building was sufficient.  Experts from all fields have weighed in on the topic.
The hijackers were identified as well as those who planned the attacks on 9/11.
Thirteen years later and people are still spreading conspiracy theories?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Gross incredulity about the fact that after 13 years,  people are still seeking truth, because the official explanation is LAME! the fact is that the mainstream media and our "leaders" have asserted the story about 19 suicidal hijackers, but in various facets of the story, bits can be proven to be outright false.  The bit about cell-phone calls from the "hijacked airliners" is one rather obvious case.  also, the "explanation" about how WTC1,2 & 7 "collapsed" does not align with the laws of physics and the laws of probability.  not to mention the fact that an official report on the subject states "Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"  However there are a multitude of possibilities here and why should "TOTAL COLLAPSE" be considered the ONLY possibility?   There are all sorts of problems with the official story, how did WTC7 fall for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2?
where is the aircraft ... that is proof that any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations, where is it DOCUMENTED that the aircraft had been accounted for?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> Has anyone bothered to examine the fundamental physics involved in these explanations and ask if said explanations ring true?



The fundamental physics of your SILENT EXPLOSIVES? Yeah, I've considered it. And that dog won't hunt. Yet your conspiracy requires it. And how do you deal with this critical, theory killing hole in your conspiracy? 

You ignore any evidence that contradicts you and then ignore the problem entirely. You don't think, you don't ask questions. You just ape whatever truther conspiracy you're told to think. Even when it laughably, obviously and undeniably fails.

No thanks.



> In the "documentaries" by the History channel, the Discovery channel, Popular Mechanics ( etc.... ) there are huge mistakes or possibly intentional fraud published as if it was the most perfect thing possible.  REALLY people?


Says you. And you ignore anything that doesn't ape your conspiracy. Remember the videos of flight 175 crashing into the south tower? All 43 of them. You ignored them all. *Every single video, every live feed, every camcorder, everything...insisting they were all 'fraud'. *You ignored every single eye witness account, dismissing them all as government plants.

Just because you ignore all evidence that contradicts you doesn't mean that the evidence ceases to exist. Nor does it mean that *we* can't look at it. And that's why the Truther conspiracy fails. Its too complicated, with too little evidence and too much contradicting it. And your response to these issues is distinctly underwhelming:

*To ignore anything that doesn't match what you already believe.* No thank you. I refuse to ignore what you must to cling to your silly, ludicrously complicated conspiracy.



> What magic brought about not only structural failure, but in a manner that resulted in the total destruction of both towers?



Tell us, with 30 stories of debris accelerated by gravity and plummeting into the floor below,_ what was supposed to happen?_ What structure within the WTC 1 or 2 was capable of stopping the collapse once it had begun?

I've asked you both questions before, and you avoid them like they were on fire and hit by airliners. 

Keep running.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> Gross incredulity about the fact that after 13 years, people are still seeking truth, because the official explanation is LAME! t



Dude, you don't want the truth. You don't ignore 43 different videos of the south tower impact, insisting they are all faked because you 'want the truth'. You don't ignore every eye witness of the impacts because you 'want the truth'. You don't ignore the FDNY on the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and structural damage because 'want the truth'. You don't ignore WTC designer Leslie Robertson because you 'want the truth'. You don't ignore every picture of plane debris because you 'want the truth'. You don't ignore every report, every radar record, every black box, every genetic test, every piece of physical evidence because you 'want the truth'.
*
You do it because you emotionally invested in your silly truther conspiracy...and you want your conspiracy more than you want the truth. *A conspiracy that is just a stupidly awful explanation of events.

Where somehow tens of thousands of invisible, fire proof explosives and all the apparatus of explosives were secretly planted in the WTC 1, 2 and 7, bombs that no bomb squad could detect nor bomb sniffing dog root out, bombs that left no residue in dust samples taken from the site and were so cleverly placed that even the building manager who was there was the WTC was constructed couldn't detect them when looking directly at them from 2 feet away. Bombs that  somehow destroyed a 110 story office building, one floor at a time all the way to the ground....

*Twice.* Yet didn't cut a single girder, leave any trace, any residue, nor a single inch of blasting wire, det cord or any apparatus of explosives of any kind.

With every of thousands of witnesses to the plane impacts being a government plant, every video being faked, every live feed being faked, every camcorder being faked, all the physical debris being faked, every report faked, every account faked, every radar record faked, every black box faked.

And involved tens of thousands of co-conspirators, including every major news network, the airforce, NORAD, the Department of Defense, the NIST, the FAA, the FBI, the FDNY (who lost 343 of their own, but still participated in the conspiracy), the NY Port Authority, all the ninja janitors who installed the elaborate system of bombs, everyone who happened to be stuck in a traffic jam on 1-395 as it wound past the Pentagon, every person looking at the WTC when the second plane hit, the ASCE, the WTC building designers, the coroners who conducted the autopsies, all the technicians who did the genetic testing on the bodies, all the folks who disposed of the bodies of the passengers on the missing flights and those who got rid of the planes, every investigator on scene and every first responder to arrived at any site a plane crashed.

And finally, despite tens of thousands of knowing participants in the mass murder of thousands, every single one of them, without exception, has remained perfectly silent maintaining absolute and perfect secrecy for 13 years. Despite the Manhattan Project, developed and housed in a secure facility and vital to our national security only remaining secret for about 7 years. While this occurred in the downtown of one of the largest cities on earth. 

All as part of the most stupidly complicated, insanely elaborate, mind blowingly complex plot ever conceived by man in the history of our planet......and executed perfectly and in public.

*4 times.*

That's your theory. This is what you consider credible and probable.

Um, no. That's fucking stupid.


----------



## aris2chat (Sep 28, 2014)

black boxes were found.  Transcript from one was used in court.  Some of the other boxes were heard by family, others were too damaged.

wreckage from pentagon was taken to a hanger at Dulles that is owned by the NTSB for forensic examination then the pieces were boxed up and disposed of as toxic waste
wreckage from WTC was taken to staten island

pieces were still being found as late as last year over a wide area of Manhattan.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> black boxes were found.  Transcript from one was used in court.  Some of the other boxes were heard by family, others were too damaged.
> 
> wreckage from pentagon was taken to a hanger at Dulles that is owned by the NTSB for forensic examination then the pieces were boxed up and disposed of as toxic waste
> wreckage from WTC was taken to staten island
> ...



The Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders for "FLT11" & "FLT175" were never found and in rubble that was sorted for human remains & artifacts, not even a piece of a flight recorder could be found so as to actually confirm the presents of "FLT11" or "FLT175"

"wreckage from pentagon was taken to a hanger"   Can this be documented?  Where is the source for this info?

and in the case of any one of the 4 airliners or rather alleged airliners, what documents the amount of wreckage having been recovered? either by weight or volume or?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Has anyone bothered to examine the fundamental physics involved in these explanations and ask if said explanations ring true?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sklyar,  Your posts are limited to endlessly projecting your own, ignorance, misrepresentations, fallacious logic and intellectual dishonesty onto those that dispute the OCT.  In other words, you aim to overwhelm with a barrage of BS.  Anyone with a clear eye can see through you like a sheet of glass, you're obviously 'all-in' - willing to say anything, credibility be damned, in order to protect the official lie.  Give it up.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> black boxes were found.  Transcript from one was used in court.  Some of the other boxes were heard by family, others were too damaged.
> 
> wreckage from pentagon was taken to a hanger at Dulles that is owned by the NTSB for forensic examination then the pieces were boxed up and disposed of as toxic waste
> wreckage from WTC was taken to staten island
> ...



Ah, but remember: Spammy's conspiracy requires that they were all faked. Every black box, radar record, piece of debris, genetic test matching a body at the impact site to a hijacked plane passenger, video, eye witness, everything.

This is how the conspiracy works: the only 'legitimate' evidence is that which confirms the conspiracy. If it doesn't, its fake. Or as the truther mantra goes: anything that doesn't ape the conspiracy becomes part of it.. That's also known as 'confirmation bias'. Its a classic fallacy of logic. And Spammy's theory couldn't exist without it.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > black boxes were found.  Transcript from one was used in court.  Some of the other boxes were heard by family, others were too damaged.
> ...



are you blind to the facts of the alleged "FLT175" crash video that was paraded in front of the world as alleged proof that an airliner hit the tower(s)?  did you not see the manner & speed of destruction of the towers & 7?  not to mention the order of the events, that is the fact that if there was a "pile driver" mass involved in the destruction of the towers, what magic kept said mass aligned over the center of the tower(s) so as to facilitate the total destruction of the building(s).
whats up with that?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > black boxes were found.  Transcript from one was used in court.  Some of the other boxes were heard by family, others were too damaged.
> ...



* Yet you've ignored every flight recorder*.....including those that were found. Including those from flight 77 and flight 93. And you ignore them for no other reason than they contradict your conspiracy. You're like the avatar of Confirmation Bias. As anything that doesn't confirm what you already believe, you ignore as fake.

If only reality worked that way.



> "wreckage from pentagon was taken to a hanger"   Can this be documented?  Where is the source for this info?



Can you document any of your claims? That all 43 videos of the South Tower impact were faked? That the audio on the WTC 7 video was faked? That all the eye witness accounts of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon were faked? That there was a single bomb anywhere in the WTC plaza? That there was a single thermite reaction?
*
Of course not.  You can't back up anything you've said. *But as is so common with your ilk, Documentation and verification is only for *other* people. Never yourself. You can't even meet your own standards. Let alone the standards of reason, logic, or evidence. Your conspiracy just doesn't work.



> and in the case of any one of the 4 airliners or rather alleged airliners, what documents the amount of wreckage having been recovered? either by weight or volume or?



Why do you ignore the evidence you do have? For example, pictures oh-plenty of commercial airliner debris at the pentagon.......the eye witness accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.....the radar records of flight 77 that end abruptly at the Pentagon impact site......the black boxes of flight 77 that were pulled from Pentagon.....the ASCE report affirming the damage was consistent with an impact from a commercial airliner.......the genetic matching of bodies from the pentagon matching passengers and crew from flight 77? The plane debris from flight 77 matching not only the same plane as Flight 77....but the exact variant used by American Airlines.

This is amazing relevant evidence that no rational person would ever ignore.

*But you do.*

You ignore it all, the massive, compelling, overlapping evidence that demonstrates the absurdity of your silly little conspiracy. And then laughably pretend that if you ignore the evidence, we must ignore it as well.

So, um....how's that working out for you?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



There are some bits that totally trump other bits, the fact that the official story included alleged CELL-PHONE calls from airliners that were moving far too fast and flying far too high to have cell-phone connections function at all and yet these people insisted that the passengers of the hijacked airliners made these cell-phone calls.... what a crock.
rather much discredits the official story right away.   The additional fact here is that if the official story promotes a video of an alleged commercial airliner "FLT175" penetrating a wall just like "B movie special effects" .... and people are not outraged about this?  The other bit is that its obvious, ( that is to anyone who didn't sleep through middle school science ) that the towers & 7 were destroyed by planned & engineered events NOT the product of aircraft crashes + fire.   The manner of destruction of the towers & 7 could not have happened unless the energy to accomplish the destruction had focus, without focus, you may as well have thrown mass quantities of fire-crackers around the inside of the buildings and set them off at random, to no result at all.  Given an examination of the events from a probability POV, it is seen to be most improbable that airliners ( that BTW are not designed to function as missiles and can not be expected to perform as missiles ) could penetrate the WTC walls as was alleged for the North tower & South tower and completely disappear inside.  This can only be interpreted as pursuant to a goal of giving the appearance that there were commercial airliners used as weapons but not actually involving any real airliners.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> There are some bits that totally trump other bits, the fact that the official story included alleged CELL-PHONE calls from airliners that were moving far too fast and flying far too high to have cell-phone connections function at all and yet these people insisted that the passengers of the hijacked airliners made these cell-phone calls.... what a crock.



Says you. Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. You claim that all 43 videos of the south tower impact were faked. But you can't actually back that claim up. You claim that the fires in WTC 7 were 'theatrical'. But you have absolutely nothing to back the claim. You claim that all the debris at the pentagon was planted. But you can back that accusation with nothing more than your ability to type it. You claim that all the witnesses to each of the plane impacts were plants. Yet you have zero evidence to back that up. 

You may believe that you simply ignoring overwhelming evidence, thousands of witnesses, dozens of videos, eye witness experts by the score and every picture that contradicts you magically makes them all disappear.

*But it really doesn't.* We can still see every piece of evidence, read every witness account contradicting your silly conspiracy, see every picture, watch every video, see every giant, theory killing hole in your claims. Your desperate, willful ignorance doesn't actual resolve the failure of any portion of your conspiracy. It only demonstrates the failure of your process.

So your conspiracy is tripley irrational. As first, its based on nothing but conjecture and innuendo. Second, its insanely elaborate and pointlessly complex.....being quite simply the most complicated plot ever conceived by man in the history of our planet. Occam's Razor just shreds the idea to ribbons as laughably implausible. And third, it requires you to ignore *massive* contradictory evidence that is immediately relevant and extremely compelling.

And no rational person would do any of these things. You do them all. No thank you.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > There are some bits that totally trump other bits, the fact that the official story included alleged CELL-PHONE calls from airliners that were moving far too fast and flying far too high to have cell-phone connections function at all and yet these people insisted that the passengers of the hijacked airliners made these cell-phone calls.... what a crock.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



aside from the appeals to authority, what do YOU have as support for the 19 suicidal hijackers story?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > black boxes were found.  Transcript from one was used in court.  Some of the other boxes were heard by family, others were too damaged.
> ...



"that they were all faked. Every black box"

Little faking required when it's claimed the black boxes from Flights 11 and 175 are "not found" and the voice recorder from Flight 77 is "unreadable." Plus there is no positive evidence linking the NTSB provided data file, allegedly from the AA77 data recorder to the specific aircraft. 

"No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77"
Flight Data Expert Confirmation No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77 

The FBI initially refused to release the voice recording from Flight 93, eventually let 'family' members listen to it in a closed session and finally in 2006 as a result of the Moussaoui trial released a transcript which begins four minutes after the terrorists took control of the plane.  

Pilots for 9/11 Truth received the Flight 93 data from the NTSB and did a close analysis of the data they contained. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001

Pilots For Truth Press Release - Flight Of United 93

Per a FOIA request to the NTSB asking the process by which the wreckage from the crash sites was positively identified as belonging to the respective planes: "Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."  

FOIA Document:
Ntsb No Records Pertaining To Process Of Positive Identification Of 9 11 Aircraft Wreckage - Pilots For 9 11 Truth Forum


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> Per a FOIA request to the NTSB asking the process by which the wreckage from the crash sites was positively identified as belonging to the respective planes: "Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."



The NTSB didn't conduct the investigation into the crashes. The FBI did. Which, of course, you know. But really hope we don't. Why then would the NTSB not having data on an investigation _the NTSB didn't conduct _be an indication of some conspiracy?



> Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino



And who says that Dennis Cimino is a flight data recorder expert?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Per a FOIA request to the NTSB asking the process by which the wreckage from the crash sites was positively identified as belonging to the respective planes: "Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and who sez that you are an expert on anything at all?
the facts are in, the video that alleges to show "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the South tower, is fake because "FLT175" would have had to violate the laws of physics in order to do what was show in TV.  Therefore TV LIES!
other bits can be subject of speculation, but the facts available through the bogus videos shown to the world right after the events of 9/11/2001, totally seal the deal, its FAKE! the towers & 7 were destroyed intentionally by an engineered demolition and there were no airliners hijacked that day, no cell phone calls from the airliners ..... etc ..... we have been lied to through the most powerful propaganda machine ever invented.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> and who sez that you are an expert on anything at all?



I'm not quoting me on the collapse of WTC 7. I'm quoting the FDNY, who are experts



> ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
> 
> Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
> Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
> ...



An expert with 33 years of experience who was actually there. But you ignore him just the same. As your sole critiera of credibility is that a source agree with you. Thta's it. If they don't ape whatever silly conspiracy you're shucking, you ignore them.

Back in reality, you've presented no credible reason to ignore Hayden or any of the FDNY on why WTC 7 came down. You simply do.....because you'd rather cling to your failed little conspiracy than learn what actually happened. 

And it gets worse;



> The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,
> 
> it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
> 
> ...



But you know more than Frank Fellini, who has decades of experience with building fires and watched the WTC 7 burn.....because you saw a youtube video once?

Um, no.



> The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.
> 
> We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate at the scene….
> 
> ...



Guess Chief Nigro is in on it too. After all, my little conspiracy theorist....anything that doesn't ape your conspiracy must be part of it! 

Right? 



> Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area –
> 
> Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on.
> 
> ...



But they are ALL wrong, and only you can be right? Um, no. They are experts who were there. You're clueless and weren't.

And of course, you never even tried to answer my question:



> And who says that Dennis Cimino is a flight data recorder expert?



Try again.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Sep 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > Per a FOIA request to the NTSB asking the process by which the wreckage from the crash sites was positively identified as belonging to the respective planes: "Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information."
> ...


While I tend to agree that the hijackings are must likely bogus, the lack of a hijacking and planes hitting the towers are not mutually exclusive.It's been pretty well documented that 'drone' technology and even the ability to overtake control of a manned aircraft existed in 2001. Of course considerable effort has been made to create a "legend" for the 19 +1. It supports the official story, serving the greater agenda, wastes the effort of investigators and creates more lines for divisiveness among those seeking the truth as well people in general.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

what you have are appeals to authority and arguments from incredulity.

The fact remains that the "collapse" of the towers & 7 prove beyond any doubt that the mainstream media has been treating the public like mushrooms and indeed insulting every sentient being on this planet!

When the evidence that is allegedly proof that there was an airliner hit to the South tower and said video shows an event that would involve the violation of the laws of physics to accomplish.   oh well .... total show-stopper! 
what do you want?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > and who sez that you are an expert on anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Skylar said:


> > and who sez that you are an expert on anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Frank Fellini aka The Amazing Kreskin predicted the building would collapse five or six hours before it did.
Not buying it.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Sep 28, 2014)

WTC7 housed:
IRS, Secret Service, SEC, Department of Defense, CIA, EEOC,  NY Office of Emergency Mgmt and gets a footnote in 9-11 Commission Report


----------



## aris2chat (Sep 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



analog phones can be used during flights.  With a hijacking, the passengers were hardly concerned with interfering signals to instruments, they wanted to speak to their loved ones.  Not every passenger phone was used, but those who could get a signal I sure tried.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 29, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I submit to this forum and anybody that has scientific evidence to the contrary please feel free to post it...
Cell phone calls from an aircraft with a ground speed of >200 mph &or altitude above 5,000 ft are impossible.
You simply can't do it!  the calls are all completely technologically impossible.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


*he story...*

Many of the passengers on the 911 hijacked jets are reported to have made mobile phone calls to their relatives and others, telling of the hijacking or saying goodbye. However it's virtually impossible for mobile calls to be made above an altitude of around 8,000 feet, therefore these must have been faked.

*Our take...*

The “impossible” claim is most often associated with Professor AK Dewdney, in a study of his own called "Project Achilles". He actually tried making calls at various altitudes, and concluded that "cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet and and statistically unlikely below it". There are reasons to question Dewdney’s conclusions, though. Read more here.

Phones may be used at some distance from a base station, for instance.

In practice, GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a BTS, no matter how strong the signal.
http://www.itarchitect.com/article/NMG20000517S0169

22 miles would be over 100,000 feet. You can’t apply such a simple rule, though, because mobile networks aren’t designed to serve the skies. Others use this quote as an example of professional scepticism.

According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. 
Physics911 by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven 9 11 2001

Although the full quote tells a slightly different story.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.
Final Contact


Mobiles at Altitude


----------



## aris2chat (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Many of us have read the CT and the evidence.  I used to work on planes and later ran the supply office at a commercial airport for the planes. I've seen the result of plane crashes and suicide bombings.  I've had experience of terrorism by fanatics.
I'm sure there are others with engineering, physics, pilots, aircraft systems and even forensic among posters, writers, critics on this and many other forums.  People who are far from stupid or gullible, people who are objective not consumed with fear or hate.  Logical people who check facts, not spread CT and lies to incite or scare others.
Most of the CT on 9/11 are so laughable, but a few can be understood but based on disinformation that was being spread within minutes of the events and not based on facts because there none to have at that time.
We all saw the planes hit the WTC.  We saw the security camera pictures of the Pentagon crash.  We saw the result and followed the investigation of the aftermath.  We do not base our conclusions on wild fanatical raving or fear mongering.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 30, 2014)

"We saw the security camera pictures of the Pentagon crash."

Who here actually buys the lame excuse for security cam pix from the PENTAGON?  The worlds greatest military power has such lame surveillance that all they can muster is the poor quality pix shown that allegedly documents "FLT77" ..... REALLY PEOPLE
your tax dollars at work ..... really lame work from the worlds greatest military power!


----------



## aris2chat (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "We saw the security camera pictures of the Pentagon crash."
> 
> Who here actually buys the lame excuse for security cam pix from the PENTAGON?  The worlds greatest military power has such lame surveillance that all they can muster is the poor quality pix shown that allegedly documents "FLT77" ..... REALLY PEOPLE
> your tax dollars at work ..... really lame work from the worlds greatest military power!


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Sep 30, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "We saw the security camera pictures of the Pentagon crash."
> ...


 "I've seen the result of plane crashes and suicide bombings. I've had experience of terrorism by fanatics."

As if that statement wasn't enough, you've confirmed yourself as a fraud with that phoney gif image.

people who are "not consumed with fear or hate"

That is downright f'ing laughable.  Where is the hate filled fanaticism and fear mongering coming from??
From those that wish to perpetuate the 9/11 myth, from those that profit from it and from those that use the hate and fear to further their greater geo-political agenda.


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



images released under the freedom of information of the pentagon was less than a split second.  The security video took a frame every two seconds.

70 Powerful Images From September 11 2001 The Roosevelts

CTists say the images of the planes crashing into the WTC were faked as well.  Anything you don't want to believe gets tied up in the CT bow.
Testimonies of eye witnesses, people calling into the radio and news organizations, still and video from onlookers and tourists...... everything has to have been faked?
Many of the original FBI video clips have since been pulled.
Yes there was a computer generated video in slow motion to show how the plane crash occurred, but it is very visible not real pictures like a surveillance camera at a distance beyond the gate.

We know the WTC still exists, it was all CG in some studio and 3000+ people did not loose their lives that day.                                 ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> We know the WTC still exists,



So its down to making absurd remarks about what you believe the "truth movement" is promoting...... 

There is no "truth movement" only a mass of individuals who KNOW that there is something so terribly wrong with the official explanation of 9/11/2001 that we have no choice but to speak out.

There are all sorts of factions the "MIHOP" or "LIHOP" or whatever and everybody has their own opinion,  and I would attribute that to the gross lack of documentation on the subject, where are the pictures of ground zero right after the collapse event(s)?  Where is the documentation of the analysis of the ground zero dust?


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 1, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > We know the WTC still exists,
> ...



Its more absurd to say millions of witness and all the evidence were faked and that 14 al-Qaida hijackers did not use four commercial planes to attack the US on 9/11


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



The only "millions" that watched the events of 9/11/2001 were seeing it on TV, and a much smaller number of people were physically present to see the events with their own eyes and among that number, there are dissenting voices, some who say "NO PLANE, IT WAS A BOMB" some who tell of seeing a small commuter jet sort of aircraft, ( etc.... ) and in all, "eye-witnesses" are notoriously unreliable, where is the photographic evidence? the videos that allege to show "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the South Tower are most certainly fake.  Speculation about HOW it was done does not negate what was done.

BTW: what is the source of that picture of the Pentagon in post #465?  its a really BAD fake!


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 1, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



are you an asphyxiophilic?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

Rockland said:


> 9/11 Whackjob



Nothing like showing a bit of attitude.

BTW: the buildings WTC 3, 4, 5, & 6 had fires that were burning from the time of the north tower "collapse" and sustained damage from said fires, however no "collapse" This can be easily documented with news reports from the day.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 1, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...






aris2chat said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


If played in real time that gif would need to be 4 seconds long (2 frames minimum) for there to be ANY motion!!
And at a VERY conservative 400 mph,  AA77 would cover almost 400 yds ----  4 football fields PER FRAME

It's fake any way you slice it- no need for math.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


 the raw footage


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


Thank you for affirming that aris2chat is a charlatan.

Now show us something that clearly shows a Boeing 757.


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 2, 2014)

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf
flight data from black box.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 2, 2014)

Blame the Jew? The first attempt on the WTC came early in Bill Clinton's first term and the only explosives were set by the terrorists. If the WTC was mined with explosives the timespan would have to be during Clinton's two terms. Since evidence indicated that the 9-11 terrorists planned the attack before Bush was elected you have to implicate Clinton in any 9-11 conspiracy.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 2, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Blame the Jew? The first attempt on the WTC came early in Bill Clinton's first term and the only explosives were set by the terrorists. If the WTC was mined with explosives the timespan would have to be during Clinton's two terms. Since evidence indicated that the 9-11 terrorists planned the attack before Bush was elected you have to implicate Clinton in any 9-11 conspiracy.



Really, I don't care if its a product of things done during the Clinton administration or if it dates back to a plot hatched during the Eisenhower administration, ( remember the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX warning?) This all belongs in the speculation about how it was done, when we have not nailed down WHAT was done.
oh well .....


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 2, 2014)

Nose, engine and tail on video marked in red.  I snipped this from the video just before impact.
The security video was from a fish eye lens which is probably why the size and shape of the plane seemed too small.
As for the plane parts, there was no time to "plant" the part with so many onlookers, firemen, security and Pentagon personnel.  Most of the people there would know the difference between plane parts and a missile. 
All this CT nonsense is just fear mongering.  The boogeymen that run the nation had to have massacred more than 3000 citizens for some wacky reason.  Really???
All these years and people are still shoveling this crap while ignoring all the evidence of the plane crashes, hijacking, terrorism, planning and death videos from al-Qaida, eyewitnesses, TV/security videos, etc.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


like all ct nutsacks you've got it backwards .
it's on you to prove it's not...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> like all ct nutsacks you've got it backwards .
> it's on you to prove it's not...



Given that it is a HUGE stretch of the imagination to picture an airliner crashing into the PENTAGON at the angle that was said to have been, and then have 99% of said airliner enter the building leaving only the small bits on the Pentagon lawn..... not to mention the fact that the airliner has not been accounted for, where is the official figure of how much either by weight or volume was recovered? one story alleges that most of "FLT77" burned up in the fire that followed the crash, however how do you dispose of mass quantities of Aluminum Oxide? ( that is, something in the tens of tons of stuff .... ) 

The problem here is that our "leaders" & the mainstream media, have told this great fairy tale about 19 suicidal fanatics, and supplied absolutely no support in physical evidence.
showing people what is simply a few snapshots of what is alleged aircraft wreckage is NOT accounting for the aircraft!


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 2, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> View attachment 32481
> 
> Nose, engine and tail on video marked in red.  I snipped this from the video just before impact.
> The security video was from a fish eye lens which is probably why the size and shape of the plane seemed too small.
> ...


Your worse at this than Sklyar. And how do you explain the first blatantly bogus plane you tried to pass off?
Your a scoundrel.
Wait a second...I take that back... Lemme take a closer look. Is that ... holy f'uggin sht it's Barbara Olson!!!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 3, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > like all ct nutsacks you've got it backwards .
> ...


total absolute bullshit! 
you don't seem to realize that every time you spew the false accusations  contained in this, post, you've just added exponentially more erroneous garbage to the already gargantuan steaming pile of specious falsehoods you have to prove, a thing you have not done in 13 years.
simply put you got nothing.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


What is so amazingly funny about that comment is the degree of distortion and dishonesty the mythers here have resorted to - and they "supposedly" have the truth on their side.

Why would someone need to combine the time of separate and distinct Tower fires in order to misrepresent the burn time, making it far greater than it was?  
Why would someone need to post a gif of an obviously fake plane hitting the Pentagon?
Why would someone need to continually deny the existence of explosions when there are numerous witness accounts and audio evidence?

Why is that??


----------



## daws101 (Oct 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


you've just posted more erroneous conjecture  that you can't prove..


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


"Honest question about 911" discussion

thread starts here:

#125  SAYIT - "Planes did not cause the WTC buildings to collapse but rather the damage from high speed impact combined with HOURS of "chaotic fires" which weakened the structures"
(his emphasis on HOURS)

includes your post:
#131  daws101 -  "it was hours 2 hours and 17 min to be accurate ..."

______________

When in fact:
The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after impact = 56 minute fire
The North Tower collapsed 102 minutes after impact. = 102 minute fire


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 9, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> "Honest question about 911" discussion
> 
> thread starts here:
> 
> ...



After the Loyal Opposition has clearly shown that the official story is a farce, and the fact that nobody had a rebuttal to the above, clearly indicates the state of affairs here.
While some people insist on showing attitude by using terms such as "conspiracy whackoz"  The loyal opposition has been presenting facts.  Thank U very much.......


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > "Honest question about 911" discussion
> ...


nothing to rebut  the combined total burn time of the towers was 102 min= 1hr42 min +56 min= 2hrs 17 mins
wtc 1..2 and 7 are all the same event. no spin no conspiracy.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 9, 2014)

More like: No accuracy, no honesty, no reasonability, no credibility ....


----------



## daws101 (Oct 9, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> More like: No accuracy, no honesty, no reasonability, no credibility ....


 that's a fine description of  everything ct nutsacks claim..


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 9, 2014)

to take from a sig line, 

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.

So, in what way has the evidence supported the idea that there were 4 airliners crashed on 9/11/2001?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 10, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> to take from a sig line,
> 
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> So, in what way has the evidence supported the idea that there were 4 airliners crashed on 9/11/2001?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 10, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Why would someone need to combine the time of separate and distinct Tower fires in order to misrepresent the burn time, making it far greater than it was?
> Why would someone need to post a gif of an obviously fake plane hitting the Pentagon?



I don't suppose you could post a pic of what, other than a plane, hit the Pentagon?
While you are at it, perhaps you could post some pix of what hit the WTC on 9/11/2001?
Spammy has been foaming at the mouth that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and could use some help. Really.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 10, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Why would someone need to combine the time of separate and distinct Tower fires in order to misrepresent the burn time, making it far greater than it was?
> ...



So in other words, you feel the need to change the subject rather than address the issue about the burn time.

BTW: the mainstream media was the first to assert that airliners were allegedly hijacked and as yet has failed to supply proof that said airliners existed at all.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



You are being childish ... again.
You seem to forget it wasn't only the media that saw the planes that day and there are even dozens of spectators who also captured the scene in pix and film. Furthermore *the MS media did not "assert that airliners were allegedly hijacked" but rather reported events, some witnessed by millions, as they unfolded*.
So the obvious question is: why, if *your* scenarios are what actually happened on 9/11, must you lie in support of them?
The following comes from a well-known 9/11 CT website which, BTW, specifically contradicts your "research." In fact, they claim your agenda "is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with sensational and unscientific approach."

*Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics*
"...It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders... *An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods.*"

9-11 Research Misinformation


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> *witnessed by millions, as they unfolded*.



The ONLY "millions" watching the events as they unfolded, were watching TV!
Where are the actual statements from actual eye-witnesses? How many videos & photos exist and exactly what do these videos & photos show?

You point to one web-page that has 



SAYIT said:


> *Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics*



and you make the total leap of faith that the web-page is absolutely correct in their assumptions.

Logic & reason dictate that the "hijackings" are totally bogus + the fact that WTC1, 2 & 7 were demolished in a VERY controlled manner, leading to the complete & total destruction of all three buildings.  You can of course refuse to examine the logic .... 
not my problem,  however, I can only hope for the benefit of any lurkers who visit this forum, that they keep an open mind on this subject.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > *witnessed by millions, as they unfolded*.
> ...



You're kidding, right? You would have me (and all these "lurkers") believe that in your years of "researching" 9/11 you have never stumbled across any of the more popular 9/11 CT websites, all of which dedicate entire sections to disinformation in which they whine about those who willfully or for other reasons (like ignorance or stupidity) dump what you do on the Internet?
Here's another CT Website (TruthMove.org) which also laments your right to dilute or even destroy their message, unequivocally stating: 
*"...* The opposition prefers dealing with topics that can be easily countered, or that simply make 9/11 skeptics look like kooks. Controlled demolition and no plane at the Pentagon are some of the most _incredible_ theories in the movement."

TruthMove - Disinformation


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

OK, so PROVE that there was an airliner at the PENTAGON and indeed PROVE the allegation that the airliner was hijacked.......


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> You're kidding, right? You would have me (and all these "lurkers") believe that in your years of "researching" 9/11 you have never stumbled across any of the more popular 9/11 CT websites, all of which dedicate entire sections to disinformation in which they whine about those who willfully or for other reasons (like ignorance or stupidity) dump what you do on the Internet?
> Here's another CT Website (TruthMove.org) which also laments your right to dilute or even destroy their message, unequivocally stating:
> *"...* The opposition prefers dealing with topics that can be easily countered, or that simply make 9/11 skeptics look like kooks. Controlled demolition and no plane at the Pentagon are some of the most _incredible_ theories in the movement."
> TruthMove - Disinformation





n0spam4me said:


> OK, so PROVE that there was an airliner at the PENTAGON and indeed PROVE the allegation that the airliner was hijacked.......



Don't change the subject, Princess. You pretended there are no credible voices within the 9/11 CT Movement who consider the pap you spew here to be so un-credible as to be DISINFORMATION ... an attempt by peeps like you to discredit the entire Movement! When I prove there are whole sections of the most popular CT websites dedicated to trashing you, you quickly try to change the subject.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You're kidding, right? You would have me (and all these "lurkers") believe that in your years of "researching" 9/11 you have never stumbled across any of the more popular 9/11 CT websites, all of which dedicate entire sections to disinformation in which they whine about those who willfully or for other reasons (like ignorance or stupidity) dump what you do on the Internet?
> ...



"whole sections of the most popular CT websites dedicated to trashing you,"
Unlike some people on these forums, I tend to NOT take it personally when people disagree.  There WILL be disagreement on various facets of the story, and that is fine, everybody has their opinion, I'm just asking were is the physical proof of there ever having been an airliner crashed at any one of the 4 crash sites alleged to have been on 9/11/2001(?)


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 11, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


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



They don't just disagree with you, they reject your absurd scenarios, claiming you have discredited and perhaps killed their already lame 9/11 CT Movement.
Even your comrades see you as a flaming loon, Princess. Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 11, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> They don't just disagree with you, they reject your absurd scenarios, claiming you have discredited and perhaps killed their already lame 9/11 CT Movement.
> Even your comrades see you as a flaming loon, Princess. Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.



For the people who are supporting the 19 suicidal hijackers story, please do by all means wake up and smell the burnt Reichstag!

as for dissention in the ranks, note that any group that you can define, be they doctors, lawyers ( etc... ) have disagreements between members, so be it. what does it prove?

We are all HUMAN on this bus ...... and that is good!


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > They don't just disagree with you, they reject your absurd scenarios, claiming you have discredited and perhaps killed their already lame 9/11 CT Movement.
> ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 12, 2014)

So we get audio recordings allegedly from the hijacked airliners,
however, audio recordings are VERY easy to fake, and in the absents of hard evidence, that is an accounting for the aircraft bits, so as to prove that any one of the 4 alleged hijacked airliners was real..... what do we have?


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> So we get audio recordings allegedly from the hijacked airliners,
> however, audio recordings are VERY easy to fake, and in the absents of hard evidence, that is an accounting for the aircraft bits, so as to prove that any one of the 4 alleged hijacked airliners was real..... what do we have?



and it's easy to lie about or deny the facts when obsessed by CTs.  You are not giving evidence to prove the planes were not hijacked, just wild speculation that goes against all facts and logic, even the claims by the hijackers on their videos or by bin ladens group.

You keep blowing hot air in small puffs that would barely move a balloon, let alone all the evidence, video, audio, eyewitnesses, experts and facts.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 12, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> You are not giving evidence to prove the planes were not hijacked,



May I point out that the first to assert a given argument should be the first to prove it,
and in the case of 4 airliner hijackings, the mainstream media has made the assertion, but never backed it up with any real evidence.  in the matter of evidence, it would be no more than was done for any other airline disaster, that is to take all the parts recovered and lay them out in a hanger and account for the aircraft.  WHY was this never done, or in fact, if it was done and kept secret, WHY the secrecy?  What are they trying to hide?
MANY unanswered questions linger about the events of 9/11/2001, note that there are NO documentary photos of ground zero right after the "collapse" ... there are an abundance of disconnected snap-shots, but no documentary pix ..... WHY?
If anyone points to an obviously cut bit of steel, the stock explanation given is that the pix was taken after the clean-up operation had started and so obviously the cutting was done in the process of cleaning up the site, therefore no controlled demolition.  In fact if proper protocol had been followed, a photographer employed by WE THE PEOPLE would have been on site first thing after the collapse event of WTC1 & 2 and shot LOTS of pictures complete with copious notes as to when & where each pix was shot.
As taxpayers, are we not MAD AS HELL
yet?   If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention.


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 12, 2014)

*9 11 Attacks - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com*
*Video Shows Bin Laden 9 11 Hijackers - CBS News*


*Finances*


FBI summary on the hijackers finances
A spreadsheet of expenditure on the hijacker's bank accounts
"CitiGroup PowerPoint on Hijackers" contains a useful presentation on hijackers finances, showing the amount spent in several accounts and overall 
"Account Summaries" contains brief details of the hijacker's bank accounts 
 
*Travel*


A single page table listing the hijackers, their country and date of birth, and where and when they got their US visas
A timeline of hijacker travel to the US
 
*Timelines*


FBI Hijackers Timeline as referenced in the 9/11 Commission report, and obtained by this site under the FOIA. 
FBI Hijackers Timeline, poor OCR version (sort-of searchable although with MANY errors) 
A chronology of hijacker events in South Florida
Timeline of hijacker activities for the days running up to the attacks
When and how did the hijackers buy tickets for the 9/11 flights?
 
*Others*


Various FBI interviews relating to the hijackers (possible sightings and so on) 
FBI interviews with or about airport checkpoint screeners, their procedures, and possible contact with the hijackers. There's also information on further airport videos showing the hijackers 
Purchases of knives by the hijackers, and details of knives found at the Flight 93 crash scene
A Flight Standards Service briefing on the training of the hijacker pilots, including some innocent pilots with similar names who were victims of mistaken identity 
Extensive details on hijacker IDs and includes documents recovered from the crash sites 
This 9/11 Commission folder contains detailed information on the hijackers, like passenger name records and FBI reports, as well as lists of items recovered from everything from hotels to the crash scenes 
FBI summary of the PENTTBOM case
September 17 list of plot suspects
A Finnish list of FBI terrorist suspects circa October 2001
Brief summaries for all suspects on a single page
Discussion of data mining, including details of how the hijackers were linked
Jeff Jonas presents a quick guide to how the hijackers were linked
The Zacarias Moussaoui indictment is interesting as a quick summary of the case against the hijackers
Newsweek article discussing the background to how the hijackers remains were identified through DNA
Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory paper, including a brief discussion on what can be learned from the Flight 77 and Flight 93 hijackers DNA samples (see pages 82-84)
FAA report on check of hijackers medical certification, Jan 22nd 2004
A summary of the 9/11 Commission investigation into the hijackers activities in Las Vegas
Various FBI interviews relating to the hijackers (possible sightings and so on) 
 
*Links and Related*
 
Where can I find law enforcement, 9/11 Commission and mainstream media information about the hijackers? 



The first FBI list of suspects (without photos) appeared on September 14th
The second list, with photographs, was released on September 27th
The Zacarias Moussaoui trial exhibits provided significant new information on the 9/11 attacks
This New York Times page is an index to many stories on Atta, the other hijackers and 9/11 in general
The Global Security page makes it easy to view the movements, activities and associations of each of the hijackers. Primarily based on the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 12, 2014)

So we are supposed to believe:

Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al-Omari drove from Boston to Portland, Maine on September 10, they stay overnight and the next morning, they took a 6 am commuter flight back to Boston in time to board AA Flight 11.

They do this at the risk of their flight being late and missing AA Flight 11, as well as the additional risk of having to check in a second time.
On top of that, Atta does this with the following incriminating evidence in his bags:

 a hand-held electronic flight computer
 a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft
 a slide-rule flight calculator
 a copy of the Qur'an and a handwritten testament written in Arabic.
 According to later testimonies by former FBI agents, the luggage also contained the identities of all 19 suspects involved in the four hijackings, information on their plans, backgrounds, motives, al Qaeda connections
a folding knife and pepper spray.
According to FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald, Abdul Aziz al-Omari's passport was also found in one the bags

Weren't his bags obliterated in the crash, you might ask??  
NO, his bags didn't get loaded on to AA11! The only bags to not be loaded on to AA Flight11!!

And why would he bring such things - a knife, pepper spray or flight manuals that he would not have access to on the plane?
Why bring a will that will only be destroyed? Why all the detailed incriminating evidence?  

Also, the airport surveillance video released of the two is from Portland not Boston Logan..


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 13, 2014)

All I ask for, is physical evidence or photographic documentation of physical evidence that clearly indicates the condition of the rubble pile at "ground zero" after the "collapse" of WTC7 ( and before the clean-up operation had begun ) also documented physical evidence of there having been an airliner crashed at any one of the 4 alleged crash sites.  Is this too much to ask?


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> All I ask for, is physical evidence or photographic documentation of physical evidence that clearly indicates the condition of the rubble pile at "ground zero" after the "collapse" of WTC7 ( and before the clean-up operation had begun ) also documented physical evidence of there having been an airliner crashed at any one of the 4 alleged crash sites.  Is this too much to ask?




Footage that kills the conspiracy theories Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire Daily Mail Online

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire Daily Mail Online

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

NIST Manuscript Publication Search


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 13, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > All I ask for, is physical evidence or photographic documentation of physical evidence that clearly indicates the condition of the rubble pile at "ground zero" after the "collapse" of WTC7 ( and before the clean-up operation had begun ) also documented physical evidence of there having been an airliner crashed at any one of the 4 alleged crash sites.  Is this too much to ask?
> ...



and for the pix, do you have the date/time of when it was taken, and was it a "news" pix or one taken by an agent of we the people to document the event?


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...




Learn to run your own search.

didwtc7fallintoa tidypile initsownfootpr - wtc7lies


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > You are not giving evidence to prove the planes were not hijacked,
> ...



You consider anything which contradicts your CT as contrived so there is no point in responding to your demands for proof.
Nevertheless your attempts at disinformation should be countered with the truth.
The planes were not reported hijacked but rather off-course as no communication with those planes was possible. The only usable black-box came from Flight 93 cockpit VR which clearly described the on-board events as a hijacking. Read' em and weep: 

Talk Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript - Wikisource the free online library


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



As already stated you consider anything which contradicts your CT as contrived so there is no point in responding to your demands for proof yet many here have tried to reason with you ... to no avail.


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 13, 2014)

aris2chat said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...




Remembering 9 11 With Indelible Pictures

Days of Terror A September 11 Photo Gallery

Days of Terror A September 11 Photo Gallery

9 11 Attacks Pictures Galleries - HISTORY.com

http://www.news.com.au/world/pictures-of-911-that-show-you-why-you-sho...

Unforgettable 9 11 images - Photo 1 - Pictures - CBS News

These Photos Of 9 11 First Responders Will Break Your Heart But Make You Damn Proud

9 11 Iconic images Reuters.com

http://www.ibtimes.com/911-attacks-photos-15-iconic-images-sept-11-200...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/photos/photos-nypd-world-trade-center-9...

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/9-11-the-25-most-powerful-photos-13156113...

11 Before And After Pictures Of 9 11 That Show How New York Recovered From Its Darkest Day

9 11 attacks timeline in pictures - Chicago Tribune

http://www.911memorial.org/images-videos/galleries

9 11 Photos - Crystalinks

..............................................................................


----------



## daws101 (Oct 13, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 14, 2014)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



and again a non-rebuttal to the discussion,
will you choose to communicate in words or?


----------

