# Honest question for the 911 conspiracy buffs.



## PredFan (Jan 13, 2012)

No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.

1st question:

Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 13, 2012)

I can't answer that. I put more stock in the fact that we do not know the whole story. Which is why so many take the initiative to place blame. I can theorize the reasons our govt. might have done it. But I certainly can not lay down any empirical evidence to support that theory.

Now, if you want to ask about some of the scientific/engineering related anomalies, I can go rounds for hours.


----------



## eots (Jan 13, 2012)

Go read pnac and they will tell you themselves whats to be gained from a useful pearl harbor like incident


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 13, 2012)

But isn't crashing jets into the towers enough to cause a "Pearl Harbor" incident? Bringing the towers down takes it to a whole new level that gets very complicated and increases the odds of being discovered.


----------



## eots (Jan 13, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> But isn't crashing jets into the towers enough to cause a "Pearl Harbor" incident? Bringing the towers down takes it to a whole new level that gets very complicated and increases the odds of being discovered.



the buildings where dinosaurs and now damaged not worth repairing...the risk is in some ways less as it destroyed the evidence,black boxes etc..it was far more spectacular...you could always blame terrorist if explosives became too evident, terrorist placed explosives in the towers before why not again ?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 13, 2012)

Testing cutting edge weaponry will never leave my mind.


----------



## eots (Jan 13, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Testing cutting edge weaponry will never leave my mind.



Indeed its very possible it was also an opportunity to use cutting edge tech in a real world situation


----------



## JStone (Jan 13, 2012)

eots said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Testing cutting edge weaponry will never leave my mind.
> ...



It's very possible you're psychotic.  Indeed, probable.


----------



## JStone (Jan 13, 2012)

eots said:


> Go read pnac and they will tell you themselves whats to be gained from a useful pearl harbor like incident



How did the fictional explosives enter into the buildings, twat?  Maybe, your hallucinations are a result of PMS?


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2012)

jstone said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > go read pnac and they will tell you themselves whats to be gained from a useful pearl harbor like incident
> ...



perhaps the same way explosives entered the first time ...twat


----------



## Douger (Jan 14, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxz06SwfnlU]PNAC and the NEOCONs: wanted a new Pearl Harbor - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I can't answer that. I put more stock in the fact that we do not know the whole story. Which is why so many take the initiative to place blame. I can theorize the reasons our govt. might have done it. But I certainly can not lay down any empirical evidence to support that theory.
> 
> Now, if you want to ask about some of the scientific/engineering related anomalies, I can go rounds for hours.



We might get into that.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Testing cutting edge weaponry will never leave my mind.



So, you say that a reason for doing it might be to test new technology?

Why not do it in the country of one of our enemies?


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2012)

Douger said:


> PNAC and the NEOCONs: wanted a new Pearl Harbor - YouTube



I can't get videos past the firewall here at work but I'm guessing the gist of it is that someone in our government wanted war, and they thought that this would start it.

Would that be a correct assessment?


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jan 14, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chj5R0Izt9s]Fahrenheit 911 - The full length movie-Bush cheated in the 2000 election! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 14, 2012)

PredFan said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Testing cutting edge weaponry will never leave my mind.
> ...



No. Not a reason for doing it, a reason for all the scientific/engineering related anomaly.

Good question. As a theory, I would say that doing it anywhere but on US soil would not rally the people around endless war.


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 14, 2012)

eots said:


> jstone said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


The rubble from the towers would've had MILES of det cord running through it.  They would've never been able to hide it. And as usual Eots reds me for a simple question. Fucking idiot.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



I meant testing new technology on our enemies.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2012)

Douger said:


> PNAC and the NEOCONs: wanted a new Pearl Harbor - YouTube



Dougar pretty much hit the nail on the head.This video here explains it all.They also did it for the same reason they killed Kennedy.JFk was killed because he wanted to pull out of the vietnam war and had plans for a complete withdrawal by 1965. that has now come out in the national archives and been documented through the freedom of information act thanks to the assassinations record  review board formed in the early 90's assigned to look into it. 

after kennedy was assassinated.LBJ signed memo #273 which reversed kennedys policy on vietnam and escualted the war.war means big business for us corporations,without war,they can not make millions so 9/11 was staged so they could profit again.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Fahrenheit 911 - The full length movie-Bush cheated in the 2000 election! - YouTube



that was why they rigged the election to make sure that Bushwacker got elected.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 14, 2012)

And I said, because the idea, theoretically, is to pursue endless war. In 2001, we were already under the law, trying "terrorists" for the bombings on embassies abroad. The trial in Feb of that year, took this from rag tag one timers, to an individual that testified that the attacks were carried out by a far reaching network of operatives (known as Al-Qaeda, led by Bin Laden)..then 9/11. Which turned it into a "war on terror". And we've been attacking country after country since. That agenda had to have the consent of the majority of the american public. 

Again, in theory.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 14, 2012)

And this goes back to the scientific/engineering anomalies involved. Weapons testing. Who knows, maybe already tested elsewhere.

It's all rather irrelevant at this point who did it and why. Or even HOW it happened. We're 11 years later and the agenda rolls on for a New American Century. We've broadened that plan a bunch since. Looking now at curtailing any Chinese hegemony in the south asian area, in concert with Australia.


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > jstone said:
> ...



You know nothing about Detcord so why do you pretend ? you would not recognize Detcord from the miles of other wires and cables that would of run through the towers if it jumped up and bite your ass and furthermore I never said anything about using detcord...you make no sense and are simply repeating nonsensical claims from popular mechanics


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2012)

PredFan said:


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





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqEcLlp_Big]Network -- Corporate Cosmology - YouTube[/ame]


*what enemies ?*


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 14, 2012)

eots said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Oh yeah, Einstein. The entire building was rigged with radio controlled detonators. Yet no bombs went off when the fires continued to burn. You come up with these unbelievable stories and have nothing to back them up. You idiots always talk about how it looked like a CD yet you don't watch the videos of CD's and see the det cord in the rubble after the demolition? Jesus Christ you people are stupid. I notice you avoid 7Forever's threads. You're stupid but consider 7Forever too be too stupid? Asshole.


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



are you claiming you can show a video of an imploded building and identify the det cord ?? is that what you are claiming ??


----------



## westwall (Jan 14, 2012)

eots said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...







Det cord is used to time explosions to do a specific job.  And yes, I have extensive knowledge of det cord having used it for cast shots in the mining industry.  The truther movement fails the first test which is the KISS test.


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



and what ??....you said nothing...other than making some vague claim of some kind of expertise..are you claiming miles of visible Detcord would be seen after the demolition of a skyscraper ? are you claiming Detcord is even required ?


----------



## westwall (Jan 14, 2012)

eots said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...







No silly person, det cord would have been visible to ANYONE looking anywhere in the building, or conversely the det cord was built into the building which I find dubious.
You could radio control the various explosives that would have had to be detonated to bring it down but that is way more difficult.

Now as for the reason to bring them down....frankly I can't think of one.  There are far easier methods of getting the US into a war like we're in.  And they don't require you to go through the histrionics that you folks engage in to further your little "theory".


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 14, 2012)

Both of your arguments are irrelevant. You're placing judgement value on specific information that can not be verified. Circumstance, in this case, will not do. So, in order to determine what we know, we must look closely at the science and engineering involved. 

I will say this. Steven E. Jones, is an operative for COINTELPRO.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Both of your arguments are irrelevant.  You're placing judgement value on specific information that can not be  verified. Circumstance, in this case, will not do. So, in order to  determine what we know, we must look closely at the science and  engineering involved.
> 
> I will say this. Steven E. Jones, is an operative for COINTELPRO.





> FBI records show that 85% of COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed "subversive,"[5] including communist and socialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the civil rights movement, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations; black nationalist groups; the American Indian Movement; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen; almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; the National Lawyers Guild; organizations and individuals associated with the women's rights movement; nationalist groups such as those seeking independence for Puerto Rico, United Ireland, and Cuban exile movements including Orlando Bosch's Cuban Power and the Cuban Nationalist Movement; and additional notable Americans, such as Albert Einstein (who was a member of several civil rights groups).[6] The remaining 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and the National States' Rights Party.[7]


 wikipedia

In that case, you could be barking up the wrong tree. On 9/11 they went after attacking America's financial sector on conservatives' presidential watch, followed up 8 years later by electing a radically socialist President with early allegiance to Islamic radical interests.

I don't buy either case. I think 9/11 occurred by proxy war of covert Middle East governments orchestrated in the poorest country in the region--Afghanistan, whom the big boys of Middle Eastern Oil had no interest in, from whose base they could do their dirty work.

Our intelligence did a good job imho of figuring out the puzzle. Were it internal, that would have come out like Timothy McVeigh did in the Oklahoma City Bombing.


----------



## westwall (Jan 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Both of your arguments are irrelevant. You're placing judgement value on specific information that can not be verified. Circumstance, in this case, will not do. So, in order to determine what we know, we must look closely at the science and engineering involved.
> 
> I will say this. Steven E. Jones, is an operative for COINTELPRO.







Agreed.  They don't support the truthers either.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 14, 2012)

Wikipedia?


----------



## Rozman (Jan 14, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> But isn't crashing jets into the towers enough to cause a "Pearl Harbor" incident? Bringing the towers down takes it to a whole new level that gets very complicated and increases the odds of being discovered.




To pull this off a lot of people would have been involved.
At some point some one would have a guilty conscience.
There has not been one rumor of some one fitting that bill.
Not one hint of a rumor that someone wanting to come forward.

No conspiracy is that tight.
What happened that day is what happened.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 15, 2012)

Rozman said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > But isn't crashing jets into the towers enough to cause a "Pearl Harbor" incident? Bringing the towers down takes it to a whole new level that gets very complicated and increases the odds of being discovered.
> ...



That depends on what you believe occurred. Ever heard of compartmentalization or "need to know"?
Our intelligence and military have. They are also damn good at it. it's like believing that we are made aware of all the covert ops that happen around the globe. It takes 40-50 years for information to become declassified (as long as it is also irrelevant) before we find these types of things out. I don't think we'll ever know what really happened that day. We've got more mucked up theories on this than any other "conspiracy theory" Ive been exposed too. 

It's a hamper of mis/disinformation.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



obviously he is clueless about that and that  the CIA has made a living for years keeping secrets from the population of the world such as the indonisian war by the CIA in the early 50's that involved THOUSANDS yet that was kept a secret from most americans for over 40 years. yeah all we know is that the official version,the conspiracy theory of the governments, is not true.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 15, 2012)

Let me ask a follow-up question. It seems to be general consensus that the reason behind it was to go to war.

Ok, that begs the question; who ordered it? I don't expect anyone to name a name here, just give me a company or industry even.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 15, 2012)

The neoconservative agenda for a New American Century. War is profitable. Haliburton made a lot of money off the entire affair. Among others.

I don't see the relevance in your questions.

Let me ask. What difference does any of this make?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The neoconservative agenda for a New American Century. War is profitable. Haliburton made a lot of money off the entire affair. Among others.
> 
> I don't see the relevance in your questions.
> 
> Let me ask. What difference does any of this make?



that was why they killed kenendy cause he was going to pull out of the vietnam war.he had plans for a complete withdrawal by 1965.two days after his assassination,Lyndon Johnson signed memo# 273 which reversed his policy and esculated the war.

The CIA knew he would give them the war they wanted.Brown and Root a military contracter at that time,profited in the millions.Cheney and Bush profited immensly from the war as well.
His questions are reasonable,he is just seeking the truth so I have no problem with his questions since they have all been reasonable.Its just when they start asking the SAME questions over and over that have been answered many times like so many Bush dupes do and then they start ignoring facts and evidence,then I have a problem with them.His questions  have been reasonable though and he hasnt repeated the same thing over and over again so thats cool.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 15, 2012)

IF the Kennedy assassination was from the inside. I would be more inclined to believe it was because he spoke truth to power and was printing interest free money. It could have been a number f things.

The New American Century plan wasn't yet around during Kennedy, though. There was, however, a strong urge to interfere with Iran and the middle east covertly.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 17, 2012)

eots said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


enjoy ,dumbass [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q5S0ehGhR4]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...


So, now it's NANO-THERMITE DET CORD???? The fucking truther in the video is saying that:

1. The CD companies work for rich people so they can't say anything because they'll lose business?
2. The "ninja CD company" that rigged the WTC used Nano Thermite that the CD companies don't know about?


----------



## eots (Jan 17, 2012)

Rozman said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > But isn't crashing jets into the towers enough to cause a "Pearl Harbor" incident? Bringing the towers down takes it to a whole new level that gets very complicated and increases the odds of being discovered.
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOBeqvgsQas]Loss of Liberty - The real story about USS Liberty Part 1/5 A Must See Documentary - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jan 17, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo]Israel spies on the USA part 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 17, 2012)

eots said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...


Oh yeah, attacking the Liberty, one ship, and bringing down the WORLD TRADE CENTER is the same thing. Fucking moron.


----------



## eots (Jan 18, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliaG-MLeAs]Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaks Out - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jan 18, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ]9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 18, 2012)

eots said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


So, did you see the pieces of det cord in the rubble of the building destroyed in the video?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2012)

someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2012)

eots said:


> 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res. - YouTube



awesome job of taking candycunt to school.he can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 18, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res. - YouTube
> ...


 Another handjob classic !


----------



## daws101 (Jan 18, 2012)

eots said:


> Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaks Out - YouTube


----------



## daws101 (Jan 18, 2012)

eots said:


> 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res. - YouTube


----------



## PredFan (Jan 18, 2012)

Please people, you're getting side tracked. The original question was:

Why would whoever is responsible do it in the first place? To what end?

People have said that they did it to start a war. Is that the reason you all agree on?


----------



## eots (Jan 18, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Please people, you're getting side tracked. The original question was:
> 
> Why would whoever is responsible do it in the first place? To what end?
> 
> People have said that they did it to start a war. Is that the reason you all agree on?



the creation of a big idea...a new world order...it is all detailed in PNAC


----------



## daws101 (Jan 18, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Please people, you're getting side tracked. The original question was:
> 
> Why would whoever is responsible do it in the first place? To what end?
> 
> People have said that they did it to start a war. Is that the reason you all agree on?


actually it's a restart/ continuation of a little thing called the crusades.
 the other is a unprovable false premise based on paranoia


----------



## daws101 (Jan 18, 2012)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Please people, you're getting side tracked. The original question was:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 20, 2012)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Please people, you're getting side tracked. The original question was:
> ...


 That and energy resources, peak oil scare, cannon fodder for Isntreal, and to implement a police state..along the way it provided cover for the loss (theft) of 2.3 trillion, and the destruction of financial/accounting records, and personnel at the pentagon, and WTC 7.
The 9-11 attacks accomplished many things, for the NWO, and the advancement of a police state.
PNAC says too much to be coincidental.


   "If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."

US Dept. of Defense, 1962
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

"A lot of times you really didn't even know what the project was.  You were told to go to a certain place and accomplish a certain thing.  And if you didn't have a need to know, you didn't ask any questions." --Allen Cates, CIA pilot discussing Black Ops in the documentary, Air America: The CIA's Secret Airline

&#8220;I do not advise you&#8230;what you should believe or not believe. But I do advise you, that we all need to learn as much as we can, about everything that we can, because one thing I have learned in my life: is that most of what we&#8217;ve ever been taught&#8230;has been a lie. Listen to everyone, read everything you can get your hands on, but don&#8217;t believe anything you can&#8217;t prove with your own research&#8230;&#8221;     

 WILLIAM &#8220;BILL&#8221; COOPER

&#8220;The covert operators that I ran with would blow up a 747 with 300 people on it just to kill one person. They are total sociopaths with no conscience whatsoever.&#8221;  

 Former Pentagon CID Investigator Gene Wheaton


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 20, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



That was the best summary ever.Perfect post.well said. That sums it up right there how so many people can be involved and a secret it kept.Compartmentalization where most the people  involved,they dont even know who their handlers are puiing the strings or what they are doing since they are on a strict need to know basis.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 20, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Jan 20, 2012)

daws101 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Please people, you're getting side tracked. The original question was:
> ...



where do you get this nonsense ?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 20, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


the queen of nonsense is confused


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 21, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



very good question.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

Thanks to everyone for their input. I am of the opinion that the attack and subsequent collapse of the buildings are pretty close to the official version. Did they get everything correct? No. We will probably never know the real story and one could poke all kinds of holes inthe official version. I believe it's closer to the truth than any other version. 

The reason for my questions was pure curiosity.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 21, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Thanks to everyone for their input. I am of the opinion that the attack and subsequent collapse of the buildings are pretty close to the official version. Did they get everything correct? No. We will probably never know the real story and one could poke all kinds of holes inthe official version. I believe it's closer to the truth than any other version.
> 
> The reason for my questions was pure curiosity.



so none of these credible architects and engineers who have said explosions could have only brought down those towers means nothing to you?

AE911Truth.org

and witnesses,many being very credible firefighters experienced in explosives,them saying they heard explosions going on before and during the collapse means nothing to you? and the firefighters calling the collapse of the towers due to the fires,the 9/11 commissions investigation a half baked farce doesnt matter to you either? or that witnesses heard explosions in the basement BEFORE the plane struck the towers? NONE of that means anything to you besides the fact the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years was suspended that day in the fact they should have tipped over sideways if they were going to collapse? or the testimony of Barry Jennings of bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission means nothing to you either? seriously now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 21, 2012)

oh and one more thing,you obviously did not watch this video that I posted earlier before.its never been debunked.people have tried but have failed miserably each time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw]9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Jan 21, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Thanks to everyone for their input. I am of the opinion that the attack and subsequent collapse of the buildings are pretty close to the official version. Did they get everything correct? No. We will probably never know the real story and one could poke all kinds of holes inthe official version. I believe it's closer to the truth than any other version.
> 
> The reason for my questions was pure curiosity.




It's always fun to point out the asinine aspects of your post from time to time, rimjob.  



9/11 inside job said:


> so none of these credible architects and engineers who have said explosions could have only brought down those towers means nothing to you?


Because none of them have shown how.  And because none of them have explained how the buildings could have been wired for demolition with nobody noticing.  Or how come no explosive residue was found at ground zero, how come none of the explosives were set off by the fires, how come none of the explosives were thrown clear by the impact of the jumbo jets, why one would fall prior to the one that was hit first etc....

You can't explain it either so we both know you won't try.  







9/11 inside job said:


> and witnesses,many being very credible firefighters experienced in explosives,them saying they heard explosions going on before and during the collapse means nothing to you?



Fires cause gases to expand and usually cause some sort of event.  Explosions do not equal explosives.  If you don't believe me, put something condensed in the microwave and stand there and look at it for a few minutes.  It will explode.  A can of soup, according to you, is now an explosive.  





9/11 inside job said:


> and the firefighters calling the collapse of the towers due to the fires,the 9/11 commissions investigation a half baked farce doesnt matter to you either?



Opinions are varied on the Commission but you can't quote one inaccuracy in the report.  And neither can they.



9/11 inside job said:


> or that witnesses heard explosions in the basement BEFORE the plane struck the towers?


Amazingly....they were in the basement and they knew when a plane hit 80 floors up.  

To call you a dumbfuck is to give other dumbfucks a bad name.



9/11 inside job said:


> NONE of that means anything to you besides the fact the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years was suspended that day in the fact they should have tipped over sideways if they were going to collapse?



Really?  What law of physics did they violate on that day?  What law of physics says they should have "tipped over"



9/11 inside job said:


> or the testimony of Barry Jennings of bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission means nothing to you either? seriously now.



Yes...you should get serious. We all know you missed the short bus several times when you were going to school.  Maybe you should catch one and go back...very often.


----------



## eots (Jan 21, 2012)

> Because none of them have shown how.  And because none of them have explained how the buildings could have been wired for demolition with nobody noticing.  Or how come* no explosive residue was found at ground zero, *how come *none of the explosives were set off *by the fires, how come none of the explosives were thrown clear by the impact of the jumbo jets, why one would fall prior to the one that was hit first etc....
> You can't explain it either so we both know you won't try.



there was no testing for explosive residue...there are many unexplained explosions both after and prior to impact..wiring is not essential to detonate explosives... etc.. etc






> Fires cause gases to expand and usually cause some sort of event.  Explosions do not equal explosives.  If you don't believe me, put something condensed in the microwave and stand there and look at it for a few minutes.  It will explode.  A can of soup, according to you, is now an explosive.




cans of soup do not take out lobby's and stairwells






> Really?  What law of physics did they violate on that day?  What law of physics says they should have "tipped over"




The path of least resistance describes the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths. The concept is often used to describe why an object or entity takes a given path.

Path of least resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## candycorn (Jan 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh and one more thing*,you obviously did not watch this video t*hat I posted earlier before.its never been debunked.people have tried but have failed miserably each time.
> 
> 9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings! - YouTube



Nobody else has either.  Nobody cares.


----------



## eots (Jan 21, 2012)

candycorn said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > oh and one more thing*,you obviously did not watch this video t*hat I posted earlier before.its never been debunked.people have tried but have failed miserably each time.
> ...



Nobody...aka cornyhole


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> so none of these credible architects and engineers who have said explosions could have only brought down those towers means nothing to you?



Not really, but the completely credible architects and engineers who came up with the official explanation mean something to me.



9/11 inside job said:


> and witnesses,many being very credible firefighters experienced in explosives,them saying they heard explosions going on before and during the collapse means nothing to you?



They only mean nothing to me as far as casting doubt on the official version. I have no doubt that they heard explosions, but those explosions could be explained  by the O.V. as well.



9/11 inside job said:


> and the firefighters calling the collapse of the towers due to the fires, the 9/11 commissions investigation a half baked farce doesnt matter to you either?



Being a fire-fighjter doesn't make one an expert and the last word on what actually happened on that day. It's their opinion.



9/11 inside job said:


> or that witnesses heard explosions in the basement BEFORE the plane struck the towers?



That means absolutely nothing to me. It's probably false. The planes hit the buildings and quite a few minutes passed before the buildings fell. What would the explosuions in the basement be for?



9/11 inside job said:


> NONE of that means anything to you besides the fact the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years was suspended that day in the fact they should have tipped over sideways if they were going to collapse?



No. the buildings would not have tipped over. It wasn't the impact of the planes that caused them to fall.



9/11 inside job said:


> or the testimony of Barry Jennings of bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission means nothing to you either? seriously now.



Nope.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 21, 2012)

eots said:


> > Because none of them have shown how.  And because none of them have explained how the buildings could have been wired for demolition with nobody noticing.  Or how come* no explosive residue was found at ground zero, *how come *none of the explosives were set off *by the fires, how come none of the explosives were thrown clear by the impact of the jumbo jets, why one would fall prior to the one that was hit first etc....
> > You can't explain it either so we both know you won't try.
> 
> 
> ...



candy gets owned.Nothing new,happens here everyday with him.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh and one more thing,you obviously did not watch this video that I posted earlier before.its never been debunked.people have tried but have failed miserably each time.
> 
> 9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings! - YouTube



No I didn't, but really, I don't need to.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

I suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

I love conspiracy theories, all of them. they fascinate me. I like discussing them with people even if I don't agree. I would never call someone an asshole or a dumbass because they believed.

The faked moon landing, the JFK assassination, Marilyn monroe, Obama's Birth certificate, all of them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 21, 2012)

predfan said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > so none of these credible architects and engineers who have said explosions could have only brought down those towers means nothing to you?
> ...



in other words,your clueless about bld 7.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 21, 2012)

PredFan said:


> I love conspiracy theories, all of them. they fascinate me. I like discussing them with people even if I don't agree. I would never call someone an asshole or a dumbass because they believed.
> 
> The faked moon landing, the JFK assassination, Marilyn monroe, Obama's Birth certificate, all of them.



wow have you ever been taken in by the government and our corrupt school system.you cant seriously tell me you still believe oswald killed kennedy? funny also that you would ignore that many experts have have said his birth certificate is indeed that,a fake.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



O.V.= Official version. I got tired of writing that out.

Do you thibnk that those firefighters who were experioenced in explosives could have been biased in favor of explosives? Perhaps they heard explosions and thought of explosives when it was really jet fuel.

Again i have to ask you what good were the explosions in the basement before the planes hit? obviously they had no effect since the buildings didn't fall right away. Besides, how did the people in the basement know that the planes had not hit? In times like that day, witnesses are very unreliable.

And no, the buildings fell exactly as they should have. Pancake style, with increasing speed.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



I do not know about it in relation to Barry Jennings. My ignorance of his opinion doesn't make Mr.Jennings correct.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I love conspiracy theories, all of them. they fascinate me. I like discussing them with people even if I don't agree. I would never call someone an asshole or a dumbass because they believed.
> ...



Oswald did kill Kennedy, but that's another thread. We also landed on the moon for real. Now Marilyn monroe's death and obama's birth cert are two subjects that I have my suspicions about.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 21, 2012)

PredFan said:


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



What are your suspicions about Mr. Obama's birth certificate?


----------



## PredFan (Jan 21, 2012)

candycorn said:


> What are your suspicions about Mr. Obama's birth certificate?



Mind you, these are only suspicions.

I think that there was something fishy about the whole thing. Why was it a big deal getting them released? What was there to hide? 

Having said that, this isn't a thread about it.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 21, 2012)

PredFan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > What are your suspicions about Mr. Obama's birth certificate?
> ...



I like that he held his ground.  If someone continuously questions your citizenship over and over, I think you should give them a big middle finger.


----------



## eots (Jan 21, 2012)

predfan said:


> i suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.



Yes ,falling through thousands of feet of concrete and steel is so much easier than falling through the air..what was I thinking...lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2012)

PredFan said:


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



Dude use some common sense and logic for once and be open minded.they had to have the explosives planted in the basement because to bring down a tower you cant just rig explosives at the top and expect the ENTIRE building to collapse.  I see that you DID sleep through junior high school science classes. thats something every kid learns at that level.

Here is proof that Im sure you will ignore since you ignored the fact that witnesses heard explosions in the basement before the plane hit and is  coming from an expert in explosives.In Griffins book he goes on to say-In light of these testimonys,it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux,head of controlled demolition,,INC,has been quoted as saying-" If I were to bring the towers down,I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure." 

 and like i said,you previously ignored my point that witneses said they heard explosisons going off in the basement even seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above. and obviously you are clueless about that buildint dont collapse due to fire,never in the history of mankind did they do so.if they DO collapse like to an earthquake which CAN cause it collapse,they topple over and dont disintegrate into dust.  I thought you were open minded about this but cealrly your not. oh and hate to break your heart but No,many of those firefighters were experienced in the sound of explosives knwoing the difference in the sounds of explosives planted in jet fuel.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2012)

eots said:


> predfan said:
> 
> 
> > i suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.
> ...







It would make a great fairy tale but it doesnt hold up in the REAL world.at free fall speed no less.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2012)

PredFan said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > so none of these credible architects and engineers who have said explosions could have only brought down those towers means nothing to you?
> ...




THE COMPLETELY CREDIBLE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS WHO CAME UP WITH THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION MEAN SOMETHING TO YOU?  thats just it,those people were NOT credible who came up with the explanation.In Griffins book he goes on to say-The pm authors,however,try to convince their readers that all the experts are on their side.Having inplied that there are no experts who have support the controlled demolition theory,they then say that the collapses of the WTC buildings have been studied by "hundreds of experts from acedemic and private industry,as well as the government." But this statetment is doubly misleading..On the one hand,virtually all of the "experts." who have reached or at least publicly endorced the governments THEORY have been working on behalf of government agencies "such as FEMA AND NIST." or for private industries that are dependent on government funding.on the other hand,the 9/11 truth movement can appeal to a growing number of experts who reject the official theory.the debate between the two theories cannot,therfore,be settled appeal to authority.It must be settled by appeal to the evidence.

and the evidence is what you ignore,which proves explosives brought the towers down.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2012)

PredFan said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > so none of these credible architects and engineers who have said explosions could have only brought down those towers means nothing to you?
> ...



THOSE EXPLOSIONS COULD BE EXPLAINED BY THE OV AS WELL? yeah right,all those explosions that occured some that were mistimed before and during the collapse of the towers were caused by the jet fuel fires.thats a good one but it doesnt hold up in the real world.f first of all,the fires were not that hot.They werent hot enough to melt a marshmellow let alone weaken the steel to collapse. 

 I have seen pics posters have posted in the past Im sure Eots could probably find where the spinkler system came on and the water is flowing down the stairs and coming out everywhere.NONE of the firefighters had any panic in their voices in the tapes that were released to indicate they didnt think they could handle the fire  like they DO when they feel they CANT handle one. Plus as you can have seen from the photos many times,the buildings were emitting black smoke coming from it which means that the fires were oxygen starved and not that serious.

there have been many high rise buildings that caught fire overthe years that burned HOURS on end much longer and much hotter than these fires and NONE of them ever collapsed which is why so many INDEPENDENT architects and enginners have come forward and put their jobs on the line saying they dont accept the offcial version.People all over the country are getting fired for saying they dont believe the governments version of collapse,gee i thought this was a free country where people had the right to disagree without losing their jobs.a myth obviously that this is a free county.

So that means nothing to you that those witnesses heard explosions in the BASEMENT seconds before the plane hit the tower above. I hate to break your heart but its not false,its true.one worker was carried taken to the hospital for burns all over his body coming out of the elevater yelling-explosions,explosions. deal with it,.explosives brought the the towers down.

IT WASNT THE IMPACT OF THE PLANES THAT CAUSED THEM TO FALL.No shit sherlock.Neither were the jet fule fires.Jet fuel only burns at 1500 degrees .not ANYWHERE near hot enough to cause the steel to collapse.oxygen starved fires like these were which the black smoke emitting from it proves,dont cause buildings to collapse.

So Barry jennings testimony of the collapse of bld 7, the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission means NOTHING to you? gotcha.and here i was thinking you were open minded and interested in the truth.my mistake obviously. you have NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH. There were other buildings much closer to the twin towers than bld 7 was which had far more extensive damage to them and much worse fires, yet THOSE TOWERS STOOD and yet NONE of that means anything to you.Okay I see you are close minded and in denial,no surprise.my mistake.no need to go any further then.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 22, 2012)

Someone keeps farting in here. He just farted 4 times in a row. Luckily, they were all gas, so no one has to mop the floor.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2012)

I love it.Funny how quickly your handlers sent you here to try and  derail a 9/11 truth discussion agent Rat In the Hat.Guess they saw how candy was getting his handed to him on a platter and were panicking over my post telling the truth so they sent you.priceless.I love it.

Obviously my posts has your handlers worried. I love it.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 22, 2012)

Oh, oh. Someone farted again, and this one had some spatter in it.

Better break out the Wet Jet!!


----------



## eots (Jan 22, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEkDZTldt8]Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Oswald did kill Kennedy, but that's another thread.
> 
> wow you have REALLY been brainwashed by the government and our corrupt school systems lies.Its been proven in spades oswald had nothing to do with it.If i had known you were THIS ignorant,I never would have even bothered in the first place on 9/11.I mean 80% of the population no longer even excepts that fairy tale anymore.
> 
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Jan 22, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



If the people in the basement heard explosions, the building would have collapsed then and there.  It happened about an hour and a half later on.



9/11 inside job said:


> Here is proof that Im sure you will ignore since you ignored the fact that witnesses heard explosions in the basement before the plane hit and is  coming from an expert in explosives.


Again, if you're in the basement of a building, how can you know when the plane hit 80 floors above?  



9/11 inside job said:


> In Griffins book he goes on to say-In light of these testimonys,it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux,head of controlled demolition,,INC,has been quoted as saying-" If I were to bring the towers down,I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."


Again, the building wouldn't have stood for 90+ minutes if there were explosions in the basement BEFORE THE PLANES HIT.  Not possible.



9/11 inside job said:


> and like i said,you previously ignored my point that witneses said they heard explosisons going off in the basement even seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above. and obviously you are clueless about that buildint dont collapse due to fire,never in the history of mankind did they do so.if they DO collapse like to an earthquake which CAN cause it collapse,they topple over and dont disintegrate into dust.


The impact of the plane crash compromised the fire proofing in the towers.  That compromise exposed the steel to the fires that weakened the steel.  Collapse was inevitable.  



9/11 inside job said:


> I thought you were open minded about this but cealrly your not.



No, you're unable to convince anyone that your pipe dream of worldwide conspiracy could take place.  Little wonder. You can't spell "clearly" correctly.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 22, 2012)




----------



## eots (Jan 22, 2012)

*Steve Pieczenik, MD, PhD &#8211; Served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter and Senior Policy Planner under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (41). Former Colonel, U.S. Army.*

Dr. Pieczenik trained in Psychiatry at Harvard and has both an MD from Cornell University Medical College and a PhD in International Relations from M.I.T. 



Interviewed by Paul Joseph Watson on The Alex Jones Show  5/5/11: 

"It's very rare to have a host like Alex Jones who had the bravery to bring me on ten years ago right after 9/11 when I pronounced not only was 9/11 a false flag and stand down operation which most Americans now realize, but at the same time, part of the whole scenario of the psyops war as that was created by Bush Junior and before that Clinton, quite frankly because he was involved, was the fact that Osama bin Laden had been diagnosed with Marfan syndrome... with a lifespan very short. ... And at the time that 9/11 occurred he was imminently dying and then by the time Tora Bora came in (December 2001), he was already dead. ... [at 1:00]
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Jan 22, 2012)

*Commander James Clow, MS, U.S. Coast Guard (ret) &#8211; Retired U.S. Coast Guard officer with extensive crisis management/emergency response training and drill experience. Hands-on domestic and overseas emergency response operations.* Former military assignments included; Chief, USCG National Response Center, USCG Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Project Manager, USCG Marine Safety Information System. Chief, Environmental Protection Branch, USCG, Portsmouth, VA. Former civilian roles included; Manager, Texaco Worldwide Response Team, Beacon, NY. Regional Response Manager, Equiva Services Crisis Management, Houston, TX. Regional Response Manager, Shell Oil Products, Houston, TX. Former Chair, American Petroleum Spills Task Force, Washington, D.C. and Chair, American Petroleum Spills Advisory Group, Washington, D.C. Graduate U.S. Coast Guard Academy.



Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 
"*No matter how one views the videos of the Towers and Building 7 collapsing, the laws of physics MUST hold true. If F=ma appears to have been violated *(e.g., free-fall collapse of the buildings at nearly 9.8 m/sec/sec), then something is seriously amiss and one must start looking for the "other hand" hidden beneath the table to discover what is really happening. Your video does a good job of pointing out the fallacies and ineptitude advanced by the government investigators."  AE911Truth.org


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 22, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw418zjZTU4]Hitler thinks 9/11 was an inside job !! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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


since you know absolutely nothing about history ,the point is moot!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

eots said:


> > Because none of them have shown how.  And because none of them have explained how the buildings could have been wired for demolition with nobody noticing.  Or how come* no explosive residue was found at ground zero, *how come *none of the explosives were set off *by the fires, how come none of the explosives were thrown clear by the impact of the jumbo jets, why one would fall prior to the one that was hit first etc....
> > You can't explain it either so we both know you won't try.
> 
> 
> ...


where's you proof that explosives made that path?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

eots said:


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


pants on fire!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

eots said:


> predfan said:
> 
> 
> > i suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.
> ...


hey major dumbfuckery the towers and wtc7 were mostly air! 
the total amount of concrete and steel was many times less than the volume of air in the towers, so  their mass was negligible. 

btw thinking is not in your skillset!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

eots said:


> Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

eots said:


> *Steve Pieczenik, MD, PhD  Served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter and Senior Policy Planner under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (41). Former Colonel, U.S. Army.*
> 
> Dr. Pieczenik trained in Psychiatry at Harvard and has both an MD from Cornell University Medical College and a PhD in International Relations from M.I.T.
> 
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

eots said:


> *Commander James Clow, MS, U.S. Coast Guard (ret)  Retired U.S. Coast Guard officer with extensive crisis management/emergency response training and drill experience. Hands-on domestic and overseas emergency response operations.* Former military assignments included; Chief, USCG National Response Center, USCG Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Project Manager, USCG Marine Safety Information System. Chief, Environmental Protection Branch, USCG, Portsmouth, VA. Former civilian roles included; Manager, Texaco Worldwide Response Team, Beacon, NY. Regional Response Manager, Equiva Services Crisis Management, Houston, TX. Regional Response Manager, Shell Oil Products, Houston, TX. Former Chair, American Petroleum Spills Task Force, Washington, D.C. and Chair, American Petroleum Spills Advisory Group, Washington, D.C. Graduate U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Jan 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > Because none of them have shown how.  And because none of them have explained how the buildings could have been wired for demolition with nobody noticing.  Or how come* no explosive residue was found at ground zero, *how come *none of the explosives were set off *by the fires, how come none of the explosives were thrown clear by the impact of the jumbo jets, why one would fall prior to the one that was hit first etc....
> ...



According to EOTS...nothing would ever collapse in that case.  It also fails to take into account the inertia of the area above the impacts once it became too heavy for the weakened steel to sustain.

One has to really wonder why they continue to play dumb.  One can only assume that they are no longer playing.


----------



## eots (Jan 23, 2012)

*Harry G. Robinson, III, FAIA, AICP, NOMA &#8211; Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. *Twice appointed by the President of the United States to be Commissioner and then elected Chairman, United States Commission of Fine Arts. Past President of two major national architectural organizations - National *Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. Chairman,* UNESCO International Commission on the Goree Memorial and Museum that was established to guide the development of this project in Dakar, Senegal. He has served on major boards and commissions, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Committee for the Preservation of the White House, White House Historical Association and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Founder and Past Director, Center for Built Environment Studies, *Morgan State University. Elected membership in the American Institute of Architects' College of Fellows. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the AIA, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart *for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.

*Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: *

"*The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did."* AE911Truth.org

Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2012)

eots said:


> *Harry G. Robinson, III, FAIA, AICP, NOMA  Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. *Twice appointed by the President of the United States to be Commissioner and then elected Chairman, United States Commission of Fine Arts. Past President of two major national architectural organizations - National *Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. Chairman,* UNESCO International Commission on the Goree Memorial and Museum that was established to guide the development of this project in Dakar, Senegal. He has served on major boards and commissions, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Committee for the Preservation of the White House, White House Historical Association and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Founder and Past Director, Center for Built Environment Studies, *Morgan State University. Elected membership in the American Institute of Architects' College of Fellows. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the AIA, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart *for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.
> 
> *Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: *
> 
> ...


that's not an answer.
it's just more unsubstantiated bullshit.
having a degree is no insurance against stupidity and insanity.


----------



## eots (Jan 23, 2012)

He has achieved more than simply getting a degree..


----------



## candycorn (Jan 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Harry G. Robinson, III, FAIA, AICP, NOMA  Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. *Twice appointed by the President of the United States to be Commissioner and then elected Chairman, United States Commission of Fine Arts. Past President of two major national architectural organizations - National *Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. Chairman,* UNESCO International Commission on the Goree Memorial and Museum that was established to guide the development of this project in Dakar, Senegal. He has served on major boards and commissions, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Committee for the Preservation of the White House, White House Historical Association and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Founder and Past Director, Center for Built Environment Studies, *Morgan State University. Elected membership in the American Institute of Architects' College of Fellows. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the AIA, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart *for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.
> ...



It is nice to see a twoofer actually try to make an argument though instead of just relying on commentary on flatulence like some others.

There is no reason to believe that the collapse was symmetrical since tens of thousands of people were running for their lives...that doesn't happen in a symmetrical controlled demolition.  

Further the entire building wasn't imploded.  Survivors came out of the stairwell on one of the towers.  So it wasn't symmetrical in that respect either.


----------



## eots (Jan 23, 2012)

candycorn said:


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



 and you where the Dean of what School of Architecture ?


----------



## eots (Jan 23, 2012)

*Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE &#8211; Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.*  Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years).  Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee.  Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.  *Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ).  Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.*
*
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: *

*"Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems. *

*
All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform." * AE911Truth.org


*Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,500 Architects and Engineers:* 

Patriots Question 9/11 - Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2012)

eots said:


> He has achieved more than simply getting a degree..


none of it makes him right!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 24, 2012)

must be frustrating to be candycunt and daws to constantly have their heads handed to them on a platter everyday.

their handlers must pay them an awful lot of money for their constant ass beatings they get in their posts here everyday.they sure as hell wouldnt come back for them for free everyday like they do.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> must be frustrating to be candycunt or daws to constantly have their heads handed to them on a platter everyday.


how many times a day do you tell yourself that lie?
about as often as you masturbate ,is my guess!


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 24, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> must be frustrating to be candycunt and daws to constantly have their heads handed to them on a platter everyday.
> 
> their handlers must pay them an awful lot of money for their constant ass beatings they get in their posts here everyday.they sure as hell wouldnt come back for them for free everyday like they do.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 24, 2012)

candycorn said:


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



Something I forgot to comment on:

Rimjob swears on several posts that there were explosions before the plane hit the building.  Because she says there were witnesses (in the basement--80 floors below).  Theres no way they could have seen it so obviously they are lying.  Let alone the fact that the towers stood for 90 minutes after these explosions took place. 

But lets look at EOTS post.  She posts that the explosions took out the lobby and the stairwells.

Firemen used the stairwells to go upstairs.  If explosives took them out...how did they get up stairs?  The FDNY had a command center in the lobby--the same one that the explosives allegedly took out.  

The twoofers don't need us to impeach them...they take care of that all by themselves.

EOTS=garbage.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 25, 2012)

two farts in a row from you candycunt.congrats.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I was speaking of the stairwells in wtc 7


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRPldELzZXA&feature=g-all-s&context=G2ed4d75FAAAAAAAAAAA]The Ron Paul FIX is in: a SGT micro-doc - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2012)

eots said:


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


then that makes it a bigger steaming pile.
since wtc7 was EVACUATED HOURS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE ,THERE ARE NO WITNESSES OR FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO SHORE UP YOUR WALL OF BULLSHIT!
BARRY JENNINGS LIES DON'T COUNT!


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64]Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)




----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6XNnFIeTXM]WTC 7 -The Smoking Gun of 911 - Eyewitness - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2012)

eots said:


> Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness - YouTube


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2012)

eots said:


> Michael Hess Yells From Inside WTC7 - YouTube


since wtc7 was EVACUATED HOURS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE ,THERE ARE NO WITNESSES OR FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO SHORE UP YOUR WALL OF BULLSHIT!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2012)

eots said:


> WTC 7 -The Smoking Gun of 911 - Eyewitness - YouTube


First off, here's the OFFICIAL ABC interview of him emerging from the chaos just after being rescued from WTC-7:

Barry Jennings - 9/11 Early Afternoon ABC 7 Interview

Therefore, it's a PROVEN fact that he was rescued from that building LONG before it collapsed at around 5:20 pm

Now here's Dylan Avery's and Jason Bermas' uncut interview with Barry Jennings. By the way, as most of you know, Barry died last year from still-uknown causes in his early-50s.

Barry Jennings Uncut

Can someone who is a 9/11 skeptic please explain how Barry Jennings and Michael Hess were trapped by explosions in WTC-7 BEFORE either of the Twin Towers collapsed?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



The building was empty....so any report of having lobbies or stairwells destroyed by explosions is garbage.  Just like EOTS.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


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


he'll never admit it!

whatever they heard or claim they saw had to have been debris from the towers.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

You simply call all witnesses liars....debwunkers


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2012)

eots said:


> You simply call all witnesses liars....debwunkers


WRONG AGAIN ! WHAT YOUR HEROES CLAIM THEY SAW OR HEARD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPLOSIVES IN STAIRCASES.....


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you simply call all witnesses liars....debwunkers
> ...



and how would daws101 know that ???


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

notice how agent daws refers to the witnesses as _my heros_ instead of what in fact they are..port authority and emergency planning personal and the last two people inside the wtc 7


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)




----------



## candycorn (Jan 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > You simply call all witnesses liars....debwunkers
> ...



In Building 7, thats obvious.  The building was  empty.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


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



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsCzO5Z4Wo4]Michael Hess Yells From Inside WTC7 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaO2fON1H98]Why didn&#39;t WTC 5 collapse, or WTC 6 for that matter - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2012)

eots said:


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


speaking about me in the thrid person...hmmmm. hess and jennings never say anything about exploded staircases .
Hess does say that "after the power went out he and Jennings WALKED TO THE 8TH FLOOR then heard an explosion." that's just about the time wtc2 collapsed.
the most likley cause of the "explosion" was falling debris or power boxes.


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2012)

hey  daws I hear newts hiring tweeters maybe you could get that gig for awhile


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2012)

eots said:


> notice how agent daws refers to the witnesses as _my heros_ instead of what in fact they are..port authority and emergency planning personal and the last two people inside the wtc 7


wrong again:"Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center


the fire dept was in and out of wtc7 for several after Hess and Jennings were rescued.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2012)

eots said:


> hey  daws I hear newts hiring tweeters maybe you could get that gig for awhile


who's "newts"?


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



who said I was speaking to you ?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2012)

eots said:


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


 how long have you had reading and comprehension problems?
I said "about" not "to."
English your second language?


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



thrid person..??....lol, ninny


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2012)

eots said:


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


your lack of education is truly at it's best today!


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



Your third person comment makes zero sense unless you thought my comment was a direct response to you,which it was not...so shadup


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2012)

eots said:


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


backpeddling doesn't fix your lack of education.
if you did want me to notice why bring up my name?
 it's the oldest high school girl trick there is...
no surprise coming from you!


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



See how DAWSIOI regurgitates his lack of education line "Lack of education" line.. followed by some misspelled words...then some rambling discourse about school girl tricks, as a smoke screen to cover his mistake ? ..I believe its called *debwunking*


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2012)

eots said:


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


that would be ONE misspelled word you could at least be accurate.
the only "smoke screen" is in your mind.
as to rambling discourse:  to talk or write in a desultory or long-winded wandering fashion 
two lines by definition is not rambling. 
so it's another: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



discourse: formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject .
so you've contradicted yourself  again by using the term rambling discourse, thus proving my statement that your "lack of education" is accurate !


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2012)

daws handlers sure pay him a a lot of money.No way would he keep coming back here everyday for his constant ass beatings he gets here everyday.He got OWNED here and he knows it.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 28, 2012)

eots said:


> Why didn't WTC 5 collapse, or WTC 6 for that matter - YouTube


Building 5 and 6 didn't collapse because there were no cables attached to bring it down! Just ask SFC Ollie, he knows!


----------



## PredFan (Jan 28, 2012)

eots said:


> predfan said:
> 
> 
> > i suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.
> ...



One floor colapses onto the lower floor, now it is the weight of two floors, then the two floors collapse onto a third floor now it is the weight of three floors, and on and on. It's pretty solid physics.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 28, 2012)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > predfan said:
> ...


That's what I used to think too. But I saw that "solid physics" you describe debunked online, let me look for the vid.


----------



## eots (Jan 28, 2012)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > predfan said:
> ...



Well two problems with that theory one being there is a robust central core the floors are built around and two is the principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't WTC 5 collapse, or WTC 6 for that matter - YouTube
> ...



I know.that ones priceless.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2012)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > predfan said:
> ...



except the problem with your hysterical logic is that any architec will tell you that towers and buidings,especailly huge towers like the trade centers,the lower the floors are,the steel columns  are thicker and stronger than the colums that are higher and they were designed so they could take a hit from MULTIPLE AIRLINERS and they would remain standing.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2012)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## PredFan (Jan 28, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Dude use some common sense and logic for once and be open minded.



Pal, I never called you an idiot, or a whack-job nor have I even implied that you were stupid or not using logic. I'd apprefciate it if you gave me the same courtesy.



9/11 inside job said:


> they had to have the explosives planted in the basement because to bring down a tower you cant just rig explosives at the top and expect the ENTIRE building to collapse.



You might have a point IF they had rigged explosives. They did not.



9/11 inside job said:


> I see that you DID sleep through junior high school science classes. thats something every kid learns at that level.



Do you only have insults or do you have any facts? Tell me about this science that you know and few other people do.



9/11 inside job said:


> Here is proof that Im sure you will ignore since you ignored the fact that witnesses heard explosions in the basement before the plane hit and is  coming from an expert in explosives.



I didn't ignore the (non-fact) that witness claimed to hear explosions before the planes hit. i in fact asked how anyone could think that there is any validity to those claims.



9/11 inside job said:


> In Griffins book he goes on to say-In light of these testimonys,it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux,head of controlled demolition,,INC,has been quoted as saying-" If I were to bring the towers down,I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."



Hmm...then why isn't that the way that professional demolitionists do it? They don't put dynamite in the basement and let the building fall where it may. And just because it's in some guy's book, doesn't mean it's a fact.



9/11 inside job said:


> and like i said,you previously ignored my point that witneses said they heard explosisons going off in the basement even seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above.



No, I didn't.



9/11 inside job said:


> and obviously you are clueless about that buildint dont collapse due to fire,never in the history of mankind did they do so.



Never in the history of mankind has a 747 crashed into a skyscraper either.



9/11 inside job said:


> if they DO collapse like to an earthquake which CAN cause it collapse,they topple over and dont disintegrate into dust.



Do you not understand the difference between an earthquake striking a building and a jet plane striking it?



9/11 inside job said:


> I thought you were open minded about this but cealrly your not.



So, your definition of open minded ius believing whatever you say? Sorry, that's not my definition.

So, let me see if I have this straight. If I don't believe what you say, then I'm not only closed-minded, I'm not using common sense or logic, and i slept through my junior high science classes, and I'm clueless and ? Is that how it goes?


----------



## eots (Jan 28, 2012)

No..plane hit wtc 7


----------



## eots (Jan 28, 2012)

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes


----------



## Dante (Jan 28, 2012)

PredFan said:


> No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.
> 
> 1st question:
> 
> Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?



The story goes the government needed to destroy the buildings in order to invade Afghanistan.  laughing here is NOT abuse, it is a normal reaction to absurdity.

So we invade afghanistan in order to invade Iraq. get it?


----------



## PredFan (Jan 28, 2012)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You do know that the "central core" was elevator shafts right? The law of conservation of energy is not violated by the crushing weight of increasing amounts of debris. The law of conservation of mementum would support the official version that I described.

Thanks, btw for refraining from using insults to get your point across.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 28, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I'll be expecting an apology from you soon or our discussion is over. I can always ignore you and discuss this stuff with EOTS.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 28, 2012)

eots said:


> The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes



No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???


----------



## eots (Jan 28, 2012)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ]WTC Core - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dante (Jan 28, 2012)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes
> ...



btw, a plane military(?) did crash into the Empire State Building before the WTC were built.


----------



## eots (Jan 28, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAVd2txjNEc]WTC Construction Manager - Twin Towers can take multiple plane impacts ! Filmed January 2001 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## trickydickyUK (Jan 29, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> But isn't crashing jets into the towers enough to cause a "Pearl Harbor" incident? Bringing the towers down takes it to a whole new level that gets very complicated and increases the odds of being discovered.



But they have been discovered; it's just a case of some people being afraid of admitting it and what its consequences mean for the people of America.


----------



## trickydickyUK (Jan 29, 2012)

PredFan said:


> No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.
> 
> 1st question:
> 
> Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?



Well the answer is obvious America is a police state now and it is only going to get much worse.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 29, 2012)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes
> ...



There is some truth to EOTS statement...however the theory is that the planes on an approach to La Gardia  (SP?) would be on their final approach and moving at a slower speed than they were on 9/11, that the fuel would be depleted.  No calculation was made for fireproofing in the face of aircraft impact. 

Additionally, the towers did withstand the plane impact.  The fire is what brought them down so EOTS, as always, is dealing in 1/2 truths.


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 29, 2012)

One of the original architects said that they had figured in the impact of the aircraft but not the resulting fires from the fuel. And, like CC said, there is a difference between a plane flying in the fog at low speed trying to find their way to La Guardia and someone flying a commercial jet at full throttle.
Besides the whole argument of "they were designed to withstand......" is a moot point. How many things were designed incorrectly and no one even suspected until it failed. Dams, bridges (Tacoma Narrows comes to mind) and buildings.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 29, 2012)

candycorn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The hypothesis of fire destroying 3 buildings with collapse times just under freefall acceleration has never been proven.
BTW airports are designed to accommodate aircraft landing as well as taking off with various speeds, and the "jet fuel" was consumed in the initial explosions and ensuing fireballs.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 29, 2012)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > predfan said:
> ...


Solid physics is what the NIST report leaves out, in particular conservation of momentum and the time it takes for the lower floors to be overcome by the weight of the upper ones, and the forces working against each other upon impact...The times of collapse don't jive with all that work that was needed to accomplish that...in all 3 buildings, not to mention the forces needed to pulverize the concrete into fine dust. 
There simply was not enough "natural" energy, kinetic or otherwise to collapse them in the times observed, unless the mass was moved out of the way of the collapsing structure just beforehand, and fire sure as hell could not do that. Otherwise the CD industry would not have to resort to exotic means to do their job, and rely on "jet fuel" and matches to accomplish their work.
_
The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5 metres per second at impact would meet *resistance* from the impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to load these columns through their elastic range and thereafter through the plastic shortening phase.
This force would also be felt by the columns below the storey which was first impacted. 
Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance. _
*Momentum Transfer in WTC1*
(which would take time to overcome, multiplied by all the floors)

In short the time for these laws of physics to be applied during the collapses, would take more time then was observed in the 2 WTC towers, and especially the WTC 7 building that was NOT even hit by a plane.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> daws handlers sure pay him a a lot of money.No way would he keep coming back here everyday for his constant ass beatings he gets here everyday.He got OWNED here and he knows it.


 assbeatings by who!!
you clowns are surely delusional if you think you're kicking my ass


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

eots said:


> No..plane hit wtc 7


but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?


----------



## PredFan (Jan 29, 2012)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Can't see videos because of a firewall at work.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 29, 2012)

trickydickyUK said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.
> ...



The closest thing to a reason as I've heard so far.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 29, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> One of the original architects said that they had figured in the impact of the aircraft but not the resulting fires from the fuel. And, like CC said, there is a difference between a plane flying in the fog at low speed trying to find their way to La Guardia and someone flying a commercial jet at full throttle.
> Besides the whole argument of "they were designed to withstand......" is a moot point. How many things were designed incorrectly and no one even suspected until it failed. Dams, bridges (Tacoma Narrows comes to mind) and buildings.



I think I must acknowledge the truth that the buildings were designed with planes crashing into them. Learned something new today.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

eots said:


> The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes


 bullshit!  no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.

The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.

But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.

Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.

British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.

"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

Dante said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yes it did in a thick fog. what are you inferring?


----------



## eots (Jan 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > No..plane hit wtc 7
> ...



NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence


----------



## Conservative (Jan 29, 2012)

9/11 trutherism is another form of insanity.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

eots said:


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


that's not the point. when you say" no plane" hit wtc7 you are trying and failing to infer that nothing other than your imagined explosives did in wtc7 .
in other words you're makin shut up.
 I know it's a tough concept but the debris caused the fires that took out the column.
it's called the domino effect!


----------



## PredFan (Jan 29, 2012)

It's easy for someone to poke holes in any explanation of an event. Especially if the event wasn't planned and those trying to put the pieces together have to do so without all of the details.

I believe that the official verson, while not perfect, is the closest one to reality. I believe that IF the government had planned this event, they would have done a much better job at faking it and they'd have their explanation water tight. The fact that they did not makes me think that they were just as surprised as we were.

After the fact, people have come forward with reasons why it couldn't have happened the way the government said it did. They show what they believe is evidence that something couldn't have happened the way it did. they get together with others who might have what THEY call proof that some other part of the official version was wrong and they claim that the whole thing was faked.

Earlier in this thread I asked what people believed actually happened. i found out that nobody has an actual explanation for what happened, they simply have the opinion that it didn't happen the way the government said it did. If someone was to come up with their version, I'll be a dollar to a donut that someone else could poke holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

I haven't heard anything that makes me think that the government planned this or that anyone but Osama Bin Laden planned this. Do I think that the government's explanation is air tight? No, and I wouldn't expect it to be. We can argue forever about why one thing or another could or couldn't have happened but until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation that makes more sense than the government's version, I'll accept that version.

Thanks to those who answered my questions seriously and without resorting to school yard name-calling.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes
> ...



Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

eots said:


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


it's really fucking disingenuous (lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness)for you to use the nist report to bolster your fantasy!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

PredFan said:


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


 some friendly advice, whenever  a twoofer makes or uses terms like "The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes "
check the origin of said term and you'll find they all come from the same source: the truth movement.


----------



## eots (Jan 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



so are you agreeing or disagreeing with NIST ?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2012)

eots said:


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


ask and answerd.
like i SAID YOU USING THE REPORT IS disingenuous  AS EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU DON'T!


----------



## eots (Jan 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



so you think nist got it wrong ?


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 29, 2012)

eots said:


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


Has anyone ever answered this loaded question of yours? I'm betting that you've asked it AT LEAST 20 times.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 29, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



You're lying on 2 counts.  The buildings did not fall at free fall speed, it was a larger amount of tiem.

Secondly, the fuel set fires on several floors below the impact sites so you're being untruthful about that as well. 

Same Old Ms. Jones.


----------



## eots (Jan 29, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Jan 29, 2012)

Obamerican said:


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



its not a loaded question you support the findings of NIST in regards to column 79 or you don't...which one is it ??


----------



## candycorn (Jan 29, 2012)

PredFan said:


> It's easy for someone to poke holes in any explanation of an event. Especially if the event wasn't planned and those trying to put the pieces together have to do so without all of the details.
> 
> I believe that the official verson, while not perfect, is the closest one to reality. I believe that IF the government had planned this event, they would have done a much better job at faking it and they'd have their explanation water tight. The fact that they did not makes me think that they were just as surprised as we were.
> 
> ...



*Well, what I have always come down to when I questioned the Government version is the events at the Pentagon.  If you want to say there was a conspiracy afoot, you have to account for all four planes. Flight 93 was crashed in the middle of nowhere and served no purpose whatsoever.  Why add that to your "inbox" if you're planning a conspiracy?  

But the attacks in DC is the one that none of the twoofers can explain.  Much to their chagrin, the lightpoles that were taken out by flight 77 on the way to hitting the Pentagon proves that it was not a conspiracy simply because you would have to include way too many moving parts to add in lightpoles which, nobody and I mean NOBODY, would ever think to include in the first place.  

I mean, whenever there is a crash, you ask about survivors and look for a CVR and FDR.  Never "show me the lightpoles".  So if it were a conspiracy, you'll have to explain away all of the following:


Why not just increase the angle of attack to eliminate the lightpoles having to be planted?
Why not just change the trajectory of the attack laterally to not include the lightpoles at all?
How did the 5 lightpoles get planted with nobody seeing them being planted?
How did the cab with the smashed in windshield get there if it wasn't hit by the poles?
Why include the needless loose end of the cab driver who is nearly senile--would Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice really think, "Man, we need Lloyd Englund to make this conspiracy complete!"
Why add in the loose ends--any of whom could blow the cover off of the entire operation--of light pole planters?
Why include the Pentagon at all--the HQ of the same group you're going to tap to go to war?  

To date, none of those who question the government's version have sufficient'y addressed any of those points much less all of them.  

If it isn't a conspiracy in Virginia, there isn't a conspiracy in New York.  So it effectively destroys ANY twoofer argument.

PS:  If the "missile" crowd also believes that a missile was fired while the plane flew over the Pentagon--which is even more bizarre than those who believe in the "staged lightpole theory", one has to also account for a massive generator that was knocked off of it's moorings before the Pentagon was struck.  Missiles explode when they hit things...so apparently the "missile" crowd believes that a missile was fired, zig-zagged and hit 5 light poles then took out a Generator BEFORE hitting the building.    Nice.
*


----------



## eots (Jan 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



it came from the building designer you nincompoop


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



Never proven. Even the NIST report that you worship, but know nothing about said as much.
Get your head out from the Governments lap and brush your teeth you spineless toad.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 30, 2012)

eots said:


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



Can't understand why that doesn't compute with this idiot. Anyone can look your claim up, and move on with the topic, but this is proof that people like dawgshit totally ignore facts to support a fairytale.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 30, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



For the millionth time already det cord is CONSUMED in the fucking demolitions you fucking ignoramus. Do ya think such a sophisticated job would use what amounts to 2nd hand wiring and planning?
Good God already this shit has been talked about, linked and rehashed in 100's of links on the matter.
Go school yourselves on CDs and listen to CD experts who say this very same thing...DET cord is consumed in the demolition.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > predfan said:
> ...



That is the dumbest fucking thing ever spewed by a 9-11 OCTA..Holy shit, so all the millions of lbs. and tonnage were just so inconsequential??
Denial to the point of looking and being Fucking morons. 
Folks it's mental ignorance like this multiplied by millions, that tell the story of why America is totally fucked.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 30, 2012)

candycorn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It's easy for someone to poke holes in any explanation of an event. Especially if the event wasn't planned and those trying to put the pieces together have to do so without all of the details.
> ...



*It is noteworthy how none of the conspiracy whackjobs will address the above points in a rational matter.  If they are man enough to address them...it will be only in videos and links.  Man up and lets hear it boys.*


----------



## eots (Jan 30, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok]WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Conservative (Jan 30, 2012)

it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.

end story


----------



## eots (Jan 30, 2012)

Conservative said:


> it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.
> 
> end story



and you come up with this number how ???


----------



## daws101 (Jan 30, 2012)

eots said:


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


asked and answered


----------



## daws101 (Jan 30, 2012)

eots said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.
> ...


first, conservative was not specific about how many "several thousand" people is. 
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Massive Conspiracy


----------



## daws101 (Jan 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


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









 OK, shit head let's talk about what's never been proven:

1. government conspiracy  
the only proven conspiracy  regarding  911 is the one involving bin laden and the hijackers.
2. explosives/thermite/thermate.
3.missile hits pentagon 
4. no plane at shanksville 
5.no shoot down at shanksville
6.foreknowledge.
7.wtc7 earwittness testimony 
8. breaking or bypassing the law of physics IE:Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[2] and can be summarized as follows:

First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.[3][4][5] 
Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma. 
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. 
9. FREE FALL.
10.SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE ( Definition of SYMMETRICAL
1: having, involving, or exhibiting symmetry 
2: having corresponding points whose connecting lines are bisected by a given point or perpendicularly bisected by a given line or plane <symmetrical curves> 
3symmetric : being such that the terms or variables may be interchanged without altering the value, character, or truth <symmetric equations> <R is a symmetric relation if aRb implies bRa> 
4a : capable of division by a longitudinal plane into similar halves <symmetrical plant parts>

 THOSE ARE JUST TEN things you need to prove without using 911 truth sources..
otherwise you're talking out your ass. 
there's plenty of proof for that!


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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm


----------



## daws101 (Jan 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Jan 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 31, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Go fuck yourself, Jones. I've watched the videos where the CD company picks up pieces of it and shows it to the camera. Jesus Christ you people are fucking stupid.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 31, 2012)

Conservative said:


> it is impossible for 9/11 to have been an 'inside job'. Several thousand people would have had to be involved, and someone would have talked.
> 
> end story



and the ignorance of the american sheeps continue.actually if he knew his true history, he would know that in the early 50's there was a secret covert war run by the CIA in indonisia involving thousands that the american people never knew about and was kept a secret from us for over 40 years till through the freedom of information act,congress discovered in the 90's this war took place,yep no way of keeping a secret.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 31, 2012)

PredFan said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Dude use some common sense and logic for once and be open minded.
> ...



congrats your catching on except your twisting my words. You ignore what EXPERTS say like those 1500 architects and engineers link I posted that dont accept the official b.s story of the collapse of the towers. you ignored these credible people.
AE911Truth.org
remember them? to ignore THEM in what THEY say is being close minded and an idiot.

 To ignore what they  say IS  being close minded. you just proved in spades that your afraid of the truth about government corruption.I challenged you to refute the evidence and facts about the kennedy assassination on that thread since you still believe in THAT fairy tale as well that oswald killed kennedy even though 80% of americans dont anymore. priceless.I love it.your a fucking hypocrite.,all I did was list the facts there on that thread  and here you go and throw a tantrem and start whining . and  you have blatantly ignored evidence and facts that prove the official story is b.s as well so you got what you deserved.you can dish it out but you cant take it.

and when I pointed out the facts were stated by a lead designer that it was designed to take multiple hits from MULTIPLE  airliners and it would remain standing? all you come back with is pathetic drivel that a 747 has never crashed into a tower either? Thats pathetic drivel  when one of the lead designers said himself in march 2001 on the history channel on a modern marvels special it was designed to take a hit from MULTIPLE airliners and it would remain standing. so that point of yours is moot and holds no water.

since all you do is show what a hypocrite you are throwing  childish insults when asked to refute the facts and evidence of the kennedy assassination that there is no evidence oswald did it,that all you can do is engage in name calling,that irks of hypocrisy.

I would post that video of that real life designer that atually  said that,but you blatantly ignored the facts and evidence I listed on the JFK thread that there were multiple shooters and all you could do is reply back to me and call me names.so seeing what a fucking hypocrite you are who feels the need to get into name calling when he cant counter facts,thats about as pathetic as you can get.

you didnt even bother to address ANY of those facts because your too arrogant to admit when you have been proven wrong as many posters here have proven to you.how patheitc is that? So no sense in me wasting my time posting that video,you wont look at it since you know its the truth.

oh and yeah, you obviously slept through junior high school science classes because while i am no architect or engineer, as Eots was pointing out to you earlier,the problems with your ramblings in defending the fairy tale collapse of the towers, is that your saying the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years no longer applies anymore. 

thats what he was referring to in the problem of your rants when he mentioned the laws of conservation of momentum refute your posts. this again is something every kid in junior high school science class learns at that age. you obviously slept through those science classes. your a complete waste of time if all you can do is throw insults when you cant refute the facts and evidence oswald had nothing to do with the kennedy assassiantion and nobody here should waste anymore time with you anymore.

Im going to repeat this to you so it was posted here TWICE for you to see so you cant twist my words again.AGAIN,no if you dont believe in what "I" say,that doesnt make you close minded,But if you dont believe in what THESE credible people say in this link here  http://www.ae911truth.org/
,then yes you ARE close minded and in denial,you cant get around that one there.you know it,I know it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 31, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



thats truthful information that daws troll has no interest in knowing of course even though it was broadcast all over the history channel in march 2001 and it was only one of the  real life designers who died in the towers .


----------



## Dante (Jan 31, 2012)

Dante said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yep it happened


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2012)

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

Here is where this loyal Bush dupe shoots himself in the foot.He cant get around the collapse of bld 7.Bld 7 was SEVERAL blocks away from the towers and had minimal damage done to it.very little debris from the towers struck it and the fires were very small.The buildings next door to the towers were SEVERLY damaged by debris.The majority of the debris hit them and had far more extensive damage done to them and had for more serious fires in them and the photos show they are far more damaged than  BLD 7!!!!!! the damage to them is 100 times greater than what happened to bld 7 yet THOSE structures remained standing and did not collapse.He cant get around that fact or the witness testimony of Barry Jennings from bld 7 which he has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing about since obviously,he is in denial.

and here i was with the mistaken belief that he was interested in the truth about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers.my mistake.

I did not realise I was dealing with a coincidence theorist who buys into the bizarre coincidence that all 3 towers were owned by silverstein and they were the ONLY towers that collapsed that day yet none of the others not owned by silverstein damaged far worse than it was, remained standing.


----------



## Conservative (Feb 2, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???
> 
> Here is where this loyal Bush dupe shoots himself in the foot.He cant get around the collapse of bld 7.*Bld 7 was SEVERAL blocks away from the towers* and had minimal damage done to it.very little debris from the towers struck it and the fires were very small.The buildings next door to the towers were SEVERLY damaged by debris.The majority of the debris hit them and had far more extensive damage done to them and had for more serious fires in them and the photos show they are far more damaged than  BLD 7!!!!!! the damage to them is 100 times greater than what happened to bld 7 yet THOSE structures remained standing and did not collapse.He cant get around that fact or the witness testimony of Barry Jennings from bld 7 which he has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing about since obviously,he is in denial.
> 
> and here i was with the mistaken belief that he was interested in the truth about 9/11 and the collapse of the towers.my mistake.



liar...







http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 2, 2012)

These 9/11 threads always end up in the same crash and burn scenario. I suggest to the OP focusing on the physics related anomalies and steer clear of the priori judgement values placed on the who, what and how.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2012)

Conservative said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???
> ...



your funny.REAL photos prove your propaganda from that propaganda debwunker link bullshit.another agent has penetraed this site.


----------



## Conservative (Feb 2, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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


dipshit.. 

the picture posted CLEARLY shows that WTC 7 was not several blocks away from the towers. Are you claiming the image is not a true representation of thr footprint of the buildings involved? If so, let's see YOUR version of the building positions.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 2, 2012)

It's a real birds eye representation of the WTC complex. What is more interesting, is the ~2 dozen cars in the parking lot across West St. parallel to the Verizon building that "spontaneously" "popped off" or combusted (according to eye witness testimony) that day without being in any direct line of the debris field and no debris found in the area.

that is a much more interesting topic than arguing about where wtc7 is located in conjunction with expressions of "blocks away".


----------



## PredFan (Feb 2, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> These 9/11 threads always end up in the same crash and burn scenario. I suggest to the OP focusing on the physics related anomalies and steer clear of the priori judgement values placed on the who, what and how.



I appreciate that. If it was the truth I was looking for, then I would take your advice. My puropse was to delve into the conspiracy with people who were familiar with it. Conspiracy theories fascinate me, even if I don't believe them.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 2, 2012)

It's fun to make up theories, sure. the truth of the situation is we'll never know it.


----------



## Conservative (Feb 2, 2012)

Conservative said:


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


still waiting


----------



## daws101 (Feb 2, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> These 9/11 threads always end up in the same crash and burn scenario. I suggest to the OP focusing on the physics related anomalies and steer clear of the priori judgement values placed on the who, what and how.


there are no physics related anomalies just wrong and bias interpretations of it!......like these:Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001
9/11 Anomalies
A Priory of Science
etc...
all wrong all specious, inconclusive make believe!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 2, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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


that's "you're" and "penetrated"
what real photos?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 2, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???
> 
> Here is where this loyal Bush dupe shoots himself in the foot.He cant get around the collapse of bld 7.Bld 7 was SEVERAL blocks away from the towers and had minimal damage done to it.very little debris from the towers struck it and the fires were very small.The buildings next door to the towers were SEVERLY damaged by debris.The majority of the debris hit them and had far more extensive damage done to them and had for more serious fires in them and the photos show they are far more damaged than  BLD 7!!!!!! the damage to them is 100 times greater than what happened to bld 7 yet THOSE structures remained standing and did not collapse.He cant get around that fact or the witness testimony of Barry Jennings from bld 7 which he has demonstrated he has no interest in knowing about since obviously,he is in denial.
> 
> ...



It was across the street dumbfuck.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 2, 2012)

candycorn said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???
> ...


handjob never lets fact get in his way....


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 2, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> It's a real birds eye representation of the WTC complex. What is more interesting, is the ~2 dozen cars in the parking lot across West St. parallel to the Verizon building that "spontaneously" "popped off" or combusted (according to eye witness testimony) that day without being in any direct line of the debris field and no debris found in the area.
> 
> that is a much more interesting topic than arguing about where wtc7 is located in conjunction with expressions of "blocks away".





daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > These 9/11 threads always end up in the same crash and burn scenario. I suggest to the OP focusing on the physics related anomalies and steer clear of the priori judgement values placed on the who, what and how.
> ...



This doesn't explain my initial post at all. Care to address the cars and testimony from the park across west st. from the verizon building? Or are you building yourself a strawman to hide your incompetence?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 2, 2012)

Here, I'll help you assess.





















OK, you go. Explain. Next I'll post the testimony. Then it should get fun.


----------



## Conservative (Feb 2, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



again... moron. here is an aerial photo of the area. note the proximity of building 7, marked in RED. THAT is what you call several block?

Moron.


----------



## eots (Feb 2, 2012)

*Building 7's Location*

Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. WTC 1 through WTC 6 were on the superblock bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vesey Streets. Building 7 was wedged between the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings across Vesey Street from the WTC complex. It straddled an electrical substation that filled the first two stories of about half the block.People who have heard of Building 7 tend to assume that 'ancillary damage' from the collapses of the Twin Towers had something to do with Building 7's collapse. It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex. The wall of Building 7 closest to the WTC complex was more than 300 feet from the nearest wall of the North Tower. It appears that most of the heavy fallout from the destruction of the North Tower landed short of Building 7. Building 6 stood between the North Tower and Building 7.

WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: Building 7's Location


----------



## Conservative (Feb 2, 2012)

eots said:


> *Building 7's Location*
> 
> Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. WTC 1 through WTC 6 were on the superblock bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vesey Streets. Building 7 was wedged between the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings across Vesey Street from the WTC complex. It straddled an electrical substation that filled the first two stories of about half the block.People who have heard of Building 7 tend to assume that 'ancillary damage' from the collapses of the Twin Towers had something to do with Building 7's collapse. It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex. The wall of Building 7 closest to the WTC complex was more than 300 feet from the nearest wall of the North Tower. It appears that most of the heavy fallout from the destruction of the North Tower landed short of Building 7. Building 6 stood between the North Tower and Building 7.
> 
> WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: Building 7's Location



would you consider the picture i posted, or your description, to mean several city blocks away?


----------



## eots (Feb 3, 2012)

Conservative said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Building 7's Location*
> ...



your picture is a fish eye lens that distorts scale in the picture,  distance in feet is the most accurate description


----------



## paulitician (Feb 3, 2012)

This is what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. The first two photos are of the massive fire that consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Spain. That very large building did not collapse despite the extensive fire damage it received. The fire consumed the steel & concrete tower for 24 hours. The other photos are of the WTC buildings located right below the Towers. They suffered far more damage than WTC 7, yet were still standing...


----------



## Conservative (Feb 3, 2012)

eots said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


You say 'more than 300 feet' above.

300 feet is the length of a football field (100 yards). That is NOT several city blocks.

How big is a City Block?
Even if you take the highest number of city blocks per mile from this link, giving you the smallest block size (264 feet), it would still only come out to 1.1 city blocks distance between the tower and building 7.

Conclusion based on science and NOT nonsense: Building 7 was NOT 'several blocks away' from the nearest tower.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2012)

paulitician said:


> This is what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. The first two photos are of the massive fire that consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Spain. That very large building did not collapse despite the extensive fire damage it received. The fire consumed the steel & concrete tower for 24 hours. The other photos are of the WTC buildings located right below the Towers. They suffered far more damage than WTC 7, yet were still standing...



finally back.I see someone beat me to the punch that there were other buildings closer to bld 7 damaged far more extensive than bld 7 yet THEY  remained standing.thats the important fact!! that there were buildings closer with far more extensive damage than bld 7 yet unlike bld 7,did not collapse. as those pics prove,there have been fires in high rise towers far more serious than then ones in the twin towers but for the first time in history,these towers collapsed due to fires even though they were not lit up like a torch like those were.and you cant come back with jet fuel weakened them to make them collapse either because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to have that kind of effect and as i have said many times before on this thread,the towers were designed to take hits from MULTIPLE airliners.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2012)

Conservative said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



your obsessed over an irrelevent mistake of several blocks instead of a couple blocks? your avoiding the IMPORTANT fact that they posted that those buildings nearby were damaged FAR MORE EXTENSIVELY than bld 7 was  as those photos prove but unlike bld 7,remained standing.THATS the point that matters. oh and i dont spend my entire day on the computer so cut me some slack on just getting back on this now will ya?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2012)

PredFan said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > These 9/11 threads always end up in the same crash and burn scenario. I suggest to the OP focusing on the physics related anomalies and steer clear of the priori judgement values placed on the who, what and how.
> ...



He just proved it in his OWN words right here in black in white,this dude has NO INTEREST in the truth on what happened on 9/11 even ADMITTING it here.In other words conspiracy theories like the governments that 19 muslims highjacked the planes and jet fuel fires caused the collapse of the towers is the only thing he wants to know about.

not worth the bother anymore.


----------



## Conservative (Feb 3, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



dumbest comment on any message board, ever.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 3, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Yep. The truth will not be found on this topic. So it's all a waste of time. the theories, the whole lot of it. Maybe in 50 years or so the truth will get released. I'm not gonna hold my breath. Especially since the investigation was botched and the whole thing swept away into a mountain of theories and after thoughts. Those that question are crazy is the common concensus. It's a lost cause to fight for.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2012)

Conservative said:


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



 nice convient dodge there evading the facts evading the imporant fact about those buildings and building 7.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



Oh Yeah thats what I been saying the last few years myself.the people lost control over the government DECADES ago back in the early 1900's.Until the american people take back their country where the government serves US,instead of the way it is now where we serve them,its a lost cause to fight for.Its been over  10 years now.Its just going to turn into another kennedy assassination thing  where the real killers get away with it and the lie continues to be crammed down our throuts by the corporate controlled media and our corrupt school system.

Thats why I try to advise people who argue with shills about 9/11 that its not worth it.9/11 is the least of our problems we have to worry about from the government right now.Its all just a smoke screen to keep truthers occupied while they plot other things against them.I was guilty of that myself arguing about it  for years till a couple years ago.I usually try to stay away from these 9/11 discussions  but this was one i could not resist.Nothing will ever change until the people take their country back.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 3, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


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



You make some spot-on points. You're a "Bat-Shit crazy America-hating puppy-strangling Nazi", if you dare question the Government's story on 9/11. Check out my earlier 'Everything you ever wanted to know about the 911 Conspiracy in under 5 minutes' post. It's pretty interesting.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 3, 2012)

i don't need to watch it. I've spent ten plus years on the subject and it's futile. I'm familiar with what is in there Im sure. I dont even bother on the theories when there are tons of scientific anomalies to run people over with. It's all just useless in the end.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 3, 2012)

Yep, a meltdown of Biblical proportions. George Orwell, a latter day prophet...


----------



## Conservative (Feb 3, 2012)

9/11 truthers are insane, by definition. You should all be evaluated, sedated, and forcibly sterilized so you cannot further pollute the gene pool.


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 3, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> i don't need to watch it. I've spent ten plus years on the subject and it's futile. I'm familiar with what is in there Im sure. I dont even bother on the theories when there are tons of scientific anomalies to run people over with. *I'm* just useless in the end.


Fixed.


----------



## eots (Feb 3, 2012)

Conservative said:


> 9/11 truthers are insane, by definition. You should all be evaluated, sedated, and forcibly sterilized so you cannot further pollute the gene pool.



*Anyone that would make such statements is clearly the person that has lost touch with reality and is suffering mentally*

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


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEkDZTldt8]Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 3, 2012)

Obamerican said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > i don't need to watch it. I've spent ten plus years on the subject and it's futile. I'm familiar with what is in there Im sure. I dont even bother on the theories when there are tons of scientific anomalies to run people over with. *I'm* just useless in the end.
> ...



:really, really slow and condescending clap:

And yet when I did debate this subject here, with you as a participant. I ran you the fuck over too. because there are a lot of things that can not be explained. Whether you want to fall back on your cognitive dissonance or not. I even offered one of many up here and it went unmatched.

So, laugh it up. The jokes on you.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 3, 2012)

Conservative said:


> 9/11 truthers are insane, by definition. You should all be evaluated, sedated, and forcibly sterilized so you cannot further pollute the gene pool.



There is that old ad hominem thing. Or you could address the parking lot full of spontaneously combusted vehicles across West St. as the other post asked.

It's ok. I know you can not address this because you probably didn't even fucking know about it. Makes no difference now. Had you had your head out of your ass 11 years ago, along with the rest of the complacent simpletons, things might have been different.


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 3, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


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


Before you sprain your arm patting yourself on the back show us where you "ran the fuck over me".
You might do that if you could make up your (mind) whether 9/11 was intentional or not. You twofers are all over the board. If Rimjob was on my "side" I would change in a heartbeat. He's a fucking idiot.


----------



## eots (Feb 3, 2012)

Obamerican said:


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



You're... DUMB


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 3, 2012)

eots said:


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


I stand corrected. After looking at your avatar I would say you're well versed in what "dumb" is.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2012)

someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2012)

eots said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 truthers are insane, by definition. You should all be evaluated, sedated, and forcibly sterilized so you cannot further pollute the gene pool.
> ...



thats the logic and mindset of the blind loyal Bush dupes.Somehow they find all these credible entiguished people who dont accept the fairy tales of the government such as top brass militray people,expert pilots from aroud the world,architects,engineers and scientists,former high ranking government officials, or firefighters experienced in the ounds of exploives that were on the scene there.somehow this loyal Bush dupe finds THEM to be suffering mentally but out corporate controlled media and corrupt government instituitions credible.priceless.I love it.  they kill me everytime with that logic.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2012)

eots said:


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



agent candycunt troll just cant get over his obsession he has with me.The kid just cant over some grudge argument that we engaged in about 9/11 from ANOTHER site several months ago so he brings his childish grudge from there over to hear.see me and candycunts sock puppet  Obamamerica go way back from that other message board which again is why he has this irrational obsession over me.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


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





simple as pie to run all over candycunt.they sure pay him well.He would never come back here constantly for his constant ass beatings he gets here everyday for free like he does.No way in hell.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 4, 2012)

Damn, the angry stalker trolls sure are especially pissy today. lol! Probably beginning to accept the reality their Government has lied to them. And I can understand how painful that has to be for them. I guess they're just clinging to that last bit of angry denial though. They've become especially vicious in lashing out lately. But they are coming along. They're making progress. I believe there's still hope for them. They'll get past their angry denial phase at some point. Just give em some more time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Damn, the angry stalker trolls sure are especially pissy today. lol! Probably beginning to accept the reality their Government has lied to them. And I can understand how painful that has to be for them. I guess they're just clinging to that last bit of angry denial though. They've become especially vicious in lashing out lately. But they are coming along. They're making progress. I believe there's still hope for them. They'll get past their angry denial phase at some point. Just give em some more time.



They are probably so angry because their underpaid by their handlers for their ass beatings they get here constantly.


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 4, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Damn, the angry stalker trolls sure are especially pissy today. lol! Probably beginning to accept the reality their Government has lied to them. And I can understand how painful that has to be for them. I guess they're just clinging to that last bit of angry denial though. They've become especially vicious in lashing out lately. But they are coming along. They're making progress. I believe there's still hope for them. They'll get past their angry denial phase at some point. Just give em some more time.


You twofers are hilarious. In your screwed up little world you see every post you make as an ass beating? I had a higher opinion of you until you started backing Rimjob. No normal person could read his posts and agree with him yet you do that. Why is it that Ron Paul has so many idiots that back him? I like a lot of his policies but you morons make it VERY difficult to support him. Paul's support base is his own worst enemy.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 4, 2012)

PredFan said:


> No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.
> 
> 1st question:
> 
> Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?



I am one of the open minded theorist so I will not claim "that they did in fact do it!"

However they would have had every thing to gain, at least the people at the top who own the big businesses would have.
First you hire a bunch of people not connected in any way with the U.S. Government to carry out the attacks, then you give them free range to carry it out.  Even if you have to hire the people that hate you most so they can take credit for it.
This allows both sides to have the war they always wanted, the terrorist just want attention, the business men just want to make money off of war, and they all live happily ever after, since no one would ever be able to prove any of it.
After all the number one rule of all plots is to leave no lose ends.

I think their where explosives set up in the buildings that helped them come down, I think some one knew about the planes ahead of time and put them their.  I also think that their where documents in building 7 that some one didn't want to get leaked to the public.  As far as I am concerned the buildings where structurally sound and those planes should not have been enough to bring them down, they where designed to survive the natural shifts of an earth quake and the high winds.

The lies and propaganda that lead to the Iraq war only help prove that certain individuals in our government want Imperialism and will do any thing to get it.

The fact that the Right is so dedicated to keeping the poor weak and the people who own them strong shows where our governments loyalties lay.
There are those right wingers who think they are just for trying to extend the bush tax cuts and taking away all forms of aid that FDR fought to help create, the Right wishes to suck the life, liberty, happiness, and equality out of this country for the sake of a lil more coin in their pockets.
This country was started in part do to a Tax,
and if this union bound long ago should ever be severed let it be for the same very reasons it was that established.
Proverbs 28:27 He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 5, 2012)

Obamerican said:


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



I'm not interested in a high school flame war personal attack. I ran you over because you can not provide an explanation for the items like the above regarding the cars in the park across West St. So, explain them and the eye witness testimony. Otherwise, you got ran the fuck over.

Whether or not 9/11 was intentional, is not the issue at hand. Whether you believe Al Qaeda did it or not, the fucking event was intentional. The question is whether we A) know everything about the event and B) if the information we don't know, is sufficient to call for a new investigation.


----------



## cooky (Feb 6, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > This is what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. The first two photos are of the massive fire that consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Spain. That very large building did not collapse despite the extensive fire damage it received. The fire consumed the steel & concrete tower for 24 hours. The other photos are of the WTC buildings located right below the Towers. They suffered far more damage than WTC 7, yet were still standing...
> ...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 6, 2012)

cooky said:


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


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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


----------



## eots (Feb 6, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > cooky said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Feb 6, 2012)

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 6, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 6, 2012)

eots said:


> Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



open and shut case that explosives brought the towers down.Not to mention Nist was caught lying saying they found no evidence of molten steel. oh really?



yep,NIST and the government did an honest investigation into this and had our best interests at heart here,yep,NIST was right,no molten steel found at the site.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 6, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > It's a real birds eye representation of the WTC complex. What is more interesting, is the ~2 dozen cars in the parking lot across West St. parallel to the Verizon building that "spontaneously" "popped off" or combusted (according to eye witness testimony) that day without being in any direct line of the debris field and no debris found in the area.
> ...



Really Nutty 9-11 Physics

the only incompetence I see is yours, what evidence do you have for any other explanation....none


----------



## daws101 (Feb 6, 2012)

eots said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 truthers are insane, by definition. You should all be evaluated, sedated, and forcibly sterilized so you cannot further pollute the gene pool.
> ...


describes the guy in your clip perfectly


----------



## daws101 (Feb 6, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.


handjob bellowed to no one..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 6, 2012)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 6, 2012)

four farts in a row from the angry troll.

congrats dawgshit.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 6, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> four farts in a row from the angry troll.
> 
> congrats dawgshit.









handjob's 40th birthday party


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2012)

daws101 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > four farts in a row from the angry troll.
> ...



Actually from the picture he posted of himself you're not that far off.  Scary.  Good thing he doesn't vote or breed.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 6, 2012)

candycorn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



that's not what his sister say's


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 6, 2012)

daws101 said:


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








Your links, yet again, do not address this. they try desperately to marginalize, but don't explain with coherence.

At any rate, you're a fucking tool shed...minus any tools. Good luck with that,


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 6, 2012)

And this is why it is pointless. you have a bunch of these:






Trying to explain things that are way over their head. It's futile. Especially on the intertron.


----------



## eots (Feb 6, 2012)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 7, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> And this is why it is pointless. you have a bunch of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





what else did you expect from dawgshit and candycunt?



Now we know what troll dawgshit here looks like in real life.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 7, 2012)

eots said:


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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 7, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



It also doesnt debunk Barry Jennings testimony nor does it debunk any of the points I brought up either.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


 there is an explanation that's so obvious and factual you won't even consider it  "embers"  a glowing fragment (as of coal) from a fire; especially : one smoldering in ashes 
2plural : the smoldering remains of a fire ..carried in the dust cloud from the collapse.
guess you've never experienced fire? 
there is no evidence of anything else causing those fires.
I know you wish it was men in black or some other nefarious cause ,truth is it doesn't have any of the markers for an anomalous event...it's not even suprising..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> And this is why it is pointless. you have a bunch of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how long did take you to find that? or is it from your own stash of gay porn.
either way ,that you used that says way more about you than it does about me


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2012)

eots said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2012)

eots said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> And this is why it is pointless. you have a bunch of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Barry Jennings like Mr Hess is lying both we're rescued from wtc7 hours before it collapsed.....that debunks any thing they said.
the only point you bring up that is not debunkable is the point on the top of your pinhead.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 7, 2012)

dawgshit topped himself.This time it was SIX farts in a row from you  dawgshit. I think thats a world record.your getting really great at this  shitting all over the floor here like that. well your good at something at least.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> dawgshit topped himself.This time it was SIX farts in a row from you  dawgshit. I think thats a world record.your getting really great at this  shitting all over the floor here like that. well your good at something at least.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 7, 2012)

someone farted in here.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 7, 2012)

candycorn said:


> *Are you stupid?  You can have explosions without explosives.  If you don't believe me, put a can of Coke in the microwave and turn it on.
> 
> No fireman saw explosives; just explosions which are almost expected in multi-alarm fires.
> 
> ...



Well Guy...we're waiting.  Explain the above please; points 1-10.

Tick Tock....


----------



## eots (Feb 7, 2012)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2012)

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *Are you stupid?  You can have explosions without explosives.  If you don't believe me, put a can of Coke in the microwave and turn it on.
> ...



Wow...he tucked tail and ran without comment this time.  Another one bites the dust.


----------



## eots (Feb 8, 2012)

candycorn said:


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



You are a disinfo agent and a waste of time...you are well aware no testing for explosive residue was done but you attempt to perpetuate the lie regardless, you have no credibility


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 8, 2012)

eots said:


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


He told you why they didn't test for it, you idiot twofer.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2012)

Obamerican said:


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



Here is a video of them going over the debris:

Why The Towers Fell Part2 - YouTube

Eots=garbage.  Always has, always will.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 8, 2012)

eots said:


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


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2012)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4vI1DVjQ0M]Firefighters for 9/11 Truth - Erik Lawyer Speaks - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Feb 9, 2012)

eots said:


> Firefighters for 9/11 Truth - Erik Lawyer Speaks - YouTube


----------



## 7forever (Feb 10, 2012)

_*I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their plane morph*_. _The wingless drone was shown 6-8 times between 9:03-9:26, with the fake image making its debut only one minute after the last orb showing_. The live orb and fake plane image cast their own shadows behind the towers, dismissing any nonsense that the drone was added or faked. Since *the orb did circle the buildings before impacting the southeast corner of tower 2*, the fake plane image at 9:27 was altered to make it turn more north, giving a more plausible (but still impossible) flight path.









[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=34&feature=plpp_video]WPIX (WB11) 9/11 9:21 - 9:31 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2012)

7forever said:


> _*I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their plane morph*_. _The wingless drone was shown 6-8 times between 9:03-9:26, with the fake image making its debut only one minute after the last orb showing_. The live orb and fake plane image cast their own shadows behind the towers, dismissing any nonsense that the drone was added or faked. Since *the orb did circle the buildings before impacting the southeast corner of tower 2*, the fake plane image at 9:27 was altered to make it turn more north, giving a more plausible (but still impossible) flight path.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


PROVE IT WAS A FAKE PLANE OR STFU....


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 10, 2012)

It's a fucking plane. He's a fucking moron that steals this shit from other brain dead assholes.

Even Eots avoids this shit like it's the plague.


----------



## CandySlice (Nov 3, 2013)

candycorn said:


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



He always does that when it comes down to actually coming up with something even remotely sensible. The man is a complete idiot. I just love the idea of his obsession with me and anyone else that disagrees with him. Imagine living in the same house with this squirrel bait. Yikes.


----------



## CandySlice (Nov 3, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



Uh, don't look now honey but it isn't ME with your name plastered all over every post I make. And nobody makes you madder than I do. Pretty powerful stuff for someone you've never met. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of 'Obsessed'. And poor you, now you are reduced to fart jokes.

I still want to know where our friend is? Anything?? Anything??


----------



## Rockland (Nov 3, 2013)

CandySlice said:


> He always does that when it comes down to actually coming up with something even remotely sensible. The man is a complete idiot. I just love the idea of his obsession with me and anyone else that disagrees with him. Imagine living in the same house with this squirrel bait. Yikes.



I'm sure he lives alone, in his one-room apartment.  Every day, he microwaves another plate of baked beans, then comments, "Someone farted in here."


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > jstone said:
> ...



you dont need *any* det cord neanderthal


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



you dont need radio either neanderthal


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


if you don't want to run the risk of a premature detonation you do.
do you have any idea how many radio, tv and cell frequencies are present in manhattan at any given moment?
not to mention EMF'S given off by every electronic and electrical device made? 
you should be an expert on things going off prematurely! 
10 bucks says you don't get the pun.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Let me ask a follow-up question. It seems to be general consensus that the reason behind it was to go to war.
> 
> Ok, that begs the question; who ordered it? I don't expect anyone to name a name here, just give me a company or industry even.


same people that ordered ww2 and ww1 and the civil war


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...




we dont want to know about the problems you have in your sex life and you dont know shit about what I was referring to so crawl back into your corner.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask a follow-up question. It seems to be general consensus that the reason behind it was to go to war.
> ...


which civil war?don't tell me it was the illuminati ......those bastards!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


wrong! I know everything about the total bullshit  you're  yammering about!
who the fuck is we?
appealing to a nonexistent authority...funny how all you tin asshats do that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 3, 2013)

PredFan said:


> No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.
> 
> 1st question:
> 
> Why would the government do it? To what end would they take such risks?



For control.

We were heading into decades of peace and prosperity. The USSR was gone, there was no threat to us anywhere. People were going to start wondering why we needed such a huge military. 

There is no way "Al Qaeda" planned and carried out the attack, it was the CIA all the way. 

I don't go along with everything about the "truthers" but, after the way bin Laden "died" there's no possibility he was the "Mastermind" of the attack


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Thanks to everyone for their input. I am of the opinion that the attack and subsequent collapse of the buildings are pretty close to the official version. Did they get everything correct? No. We will probably never know the real story and one could poke all kinds of holes inthe official version. I believe it's closer to the truth than any other version.
> 
> The reason for my questions was pure curiosity.


it goes far beyond not getting everything perfect, it goes to fraud, breach of trust, breach of duty, and criminal negligence.

thats what is closer to the truth


----------



## R.C. Christian (Nov 3, 2013)

To answer the original question all you have to do is examine U.S. foreign policy as it was being constructed in the aftermath of the cold war. We could do pretty much everything we wanted as long as the American people in the former Republic agreed. Pretty simple.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.
> ...


bhahahahahahahaha!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



dont put your trougher transference on me.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


like i said nonsense...no need to transfer anything you showcase your mental illness with every post!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > No name-calling, no abuse, just honest questions. Well from me anyway, I can't control what others do.
> ...



he sold them use rights to use his name so daddy could build bases for halliburton LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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




so when you gonna answer that simple high skool fizix question tard?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


already did and you were wrong...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

Conservative said:


> 9/11 truthers are insane, by definition. You should all be evaluated, sedated, and forcibly sterilized so you cannot further pollute the gene pool.



seems you are completely fucked up on that one pal

read footer LMAO


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



what a tard, when all else fails lie.  so sad for you.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > No..plane hit wtc 7
> ...



what a crock of horseshit 

prove it


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> BARRY JENNINGS LIES DON'T COUNT!



who said barry jennings lied? 

you? LMAO

PROVE IT


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > predfan said:
> ...




so you think the whole floor just laid on top of the one below it huh


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

PredFan said:


> I suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.


what physics said that?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


nope no lie your fizix problem is not presented correctly so there is no correct  answer,,,!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


asked and answerd..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



again you admit you failed, thanks!

see that?  I thanked you for your _*useful *_post! LMAO



> *The Following User Says Thank You to daws101 For This Useful Post:*
> KokomoJojo (Today)


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



no it wasnt, you have nothing what so ever to prove it!

more bullshit and yet another tard dodge.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > BARRY JENNINGS LIES DON'T COUNT!
> ...


asked and answered
barry jennings was rescued hours before the collapse making anything he said about it irelavent..   
since he's dead and cannot be questioned his statements as hearsay,his partner mr hess has never corroborated  barry's story...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


wrong! can't fail something that's incorrect to begin with..
you must learn the difference between a statement of fact and an admission.
until you do...you'll always be an ignorant slack jaw..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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




Nope, people can testify from the grave. how little you know.  making what he said absolutely relevant and first hand knowledge.

this was about the stairs being blown out goal post shifter so stop with the strawmen arguments.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



the joke is that its high school tested and most of the children got it right and you troughers are too fucking stoopid to figure it out and fell into the very first stumbling block specially designed as atard trap!

so thanks again!



> *The Following User Says Thank You to daws101 For This Useful Post:*
> KokomoJojo (Today)


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


sure i don't:











evidence by the ton..but you'll deny it and prove you are mentally ill too!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


wrong! his statement is hearsay...the staircase be blown out cannot be proven...there is no physical evidence to back up  his account of events.. 
also shit for brains I did not shift the goal posts I just filled in gaps in your reality!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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




nope I do not see any evidence that TONS of anything hit wtc7, you are just making shit up again.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



no its not, and I have no intention on giving you legal advice.  dumb ass

the subject was blown stairs tard, not when it was blown.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


thanks for proving me correct..
"evidence by the ton..but you'll deny it and prove you are mentally ill too!"-daws


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


how could you give legal advice ?
you've already proven you don't know shit about the laws either..
your probate ploy is a prime example..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



look it up tard.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


how could you give legal advice ?
you've already proven you don't know shit about the laws either..
your probate ploy is a prime example..
also the "was" the staircase s blown out is also irrelavent as there is no proof it was an integral or even a collateral part of the collapse..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



you are so fucked in the head I am speechless.

here is what a building looks like when TONS upon TONS of steel falls on it.

and OMG it did not collapse!








see putting it on here for you to see is called posting it to validate the point.

Now when you get your head out of your ass feel free to post* your pics of all those tons upon tons of steel that fell on wtc7.*

the demolition of buildings 1 and 2 *are not tons upon tons of steel that fell on wtc7* idjit.

*I see no damage to building 7 **or tons of steel that fell on 7 in any pic you posted. *

waiting.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


I didrobate is a legal document. Receipt of probate is the first step in the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person, resolving all claims and distributing the deceased person's property under a will.
has absolutely no relevance to the events of 9-11...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


acually that's a photo of the hotel and unless you're blind most of it did collapse..
but since you're desperate...!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



yep that is one aspect, however if you knew what the fuck you were doing you would know my use of the word is absolutely correct in law.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



*Still waiting:

TONS AND TONS OF STEEL THAT FELL ON WTC7 

Where is it?

insert next dodge here--> _________________________
*


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


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


no it's not...anyone who'd try to use that angel would be laughed out of court.. 

 Probate is a process that proves the will of a deceased person is valid, so their property can in due course be retitled (US terminology) or transferred to beneficiaries of the will. As with any legal proceeding, there are technical aspects to probate administration:
Creditors must be notified and legal notices published.
Executors of the will must be guided in how and when to distribute assets and how to take creditors' rights into account.
A Petition to appoint a personal representative may need to be filed and letters of administration obtained.
Homestead property, which follows its own set of unique rules in states like Florida, must be dealt with separately from other assets.[11] In many common law jurisdictions such as Canada, parts of the US, the UK, Australia and India, jointly owned property passes automatically to the surviving joint owner separately from any will, unless the equitable title is held as tenants in common.
There are time factors involved in filing and objecting to claims against the estate.
There may be a lawsuit pending over the decedent's death or there may have been pending suits that are now continuing. There may be separate procedures required in contentious probate cases.
Real estate or other property may need to be sold to effect correct distribution of assets pursuant to the will or merely to pay debts.
Estate taxes, gift taxes or inheritance taxes must be considered if the estate exceeds certain thresholds.
Costs of the administration including ordinary taxation such as income tax on interest and property taxation is deducted from assets in the estate before distribution by the executors of the will.
Other assets may simply need to be transferred from the deceased to his or her beneficiaries, such as life insurance. Other assets may have pay on death or transfer on death designations, which avoids probate. 
nothing in there has any merit in a 9-11 investigation...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



give it up dumb ass, you dont understand it and I am not going to teach you.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


>




*that is not wtc 7, that is the bankers trust building you fucking retard.*





*
what the fuck is this a pic of?  

There wass no building with an hvac system matching that one near  wtc7

where is that from?* 








your shit is laughable, you dont even know which building you are looking at.
*
suffice to say you cannot validate that tons and tons of steel hit wtc 7 and you are putting up misinformation.*


----------

