# Truthers, how was this engine planted?



## 420ish (Mar 30, 2010)

If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?






Photograph of an airplane part found in the crater at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed - U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Mar 30, 2010)

They have this "can't believe the government" deal going, but also are warmers.

You can't beat that dichotomy!


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2010)

A more important question  to me is why were the attacks of 9/11 not properly investigated and why are several military air crash investigators so sceptically of the official story and the evidence presented


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> A more important question  to me is why were the attacks of 9/11 not properly investigated and why do several military air crash investigators so sceptically of the official story and the evidence presented



since you cant answer the question you try to change the subject.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

I think it is you that  avoids the real questions


----------



## Tom Clancy (Mar 31, 2010)

Eots, Deflection Part: 2342


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Eots, Deflection Part: 2342



so this is your response to the statements of top level military air crash investigators ?


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

Eots, 

Answer the question, or please stay off this thread.

Start a new thread for your issues.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

Christophera, wanna take a stab at this?  

Looks like your other truther friends are a little stumped on this one.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots,
> 
> answer the question, or please stay off this thread.
> 
> Start a new thread for your issues.



go fuck youself..your question is pointless if there is a cover-up then all unverified evidence presented is suspect.. Especially a photograph..there is your answer


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > eots,
> ...



you are right. 9/11 never happened. all you have is pictures and people's testimonies. nothing is verified.


fucking moron.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



well clearly 9/11 happened and there is more than a single photograph to prove that and it is verified however beyond that the rest of the investigation is wide open to question full of conflicting testimony and undisclosed and unverified evidence


----------



## froggy (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> A more important question  to me is why were the attacks of 9/11 not properly investigated and why are several military air crash investigators so sceptically of the official story and the evidence presented



Maybe the Bush admin. didn't want it fully investigated for fear of what might come to light.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


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



well, make up your mind. in this thread you claim there is proof it happened and in another thread you claim there is no proof and its just a story.



eots said:


> You have no proof just a story and two failed investigations


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

froggy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > A more important question  to me is why were the attacks of 9/11 not properly investigated and why are several military air crash investigators so sceptically of the official story and the evidence presented
> ...


as well as the former Clinton administration


----------



## Terral (Mar 31, 2010)

Hi 420:

This 420 Official Cover Story Stooge thinks that he is going to waste our time with his Bullony. I answered his *Flight 93 Topic* (here), but the guy refuses to address 'the evidence.' 



420ish said:


> If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?



This silly question was already answered for you here. The answer to your question is: The Inside-job murderers working for George Bush, Karl Rove, Dickless Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld PLANTED IT THERE. These 100-ton Jetliners have *'two' *(2) 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines and not just one little piece of rust that easily fits in the back of one pickup truck (you idiot). You are pointing to evidence of the "Inside-Job" Attack and the ongoing FBI/CIA/NSA/DoD Cover-Up Operation. That is why you are missing about 100 TONS of evidence to support the Official Cover Story LIE. 

What do you see in the Official Govt Photograph (my Flight 93 Topic)?






I see an empty hole with grass growing on all the inclines.






I have already shown you the *4/20/1994 U.S. Geological Survey Photographs* of the same empty hole (pic), but you would rather play the Official Govt Cover Story Idiot cuckoo ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi 420:
> 
> This 420 Official Cover Story Stooge thinks that he is going to waste our time with his Bullony. I answered his *Flight 93 Topic* (here), but the guy refuses to address 'the evidence.'
> 
> ...


MY GAWD, you are a fucking IDIOT


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi 420:
> 
> This 420 Official Cover Story Stooge thinks that he is going to waste our time with his Bullony. I answered his *Flight 93 Topic* (here), but the guy refuses to address 'the evidence.'
> 
> ...




you lie.

95% of the plane was recovered there. you still have no explanation for his original post of how construction equipment and the "evidence" to be planted arrived at the scene, was unloaded from the trailers, dug the hole, planted all the evidence in the hole and the surrounding area, covered up the evidence inside the hole, planted the DNA evidence for people that were currently not even in the same state, packed up all the construction equipment back onto the trucks, planted explosives to simulate a crash, covered up all the tracks made by construction equipment, planted grass over the tracks of the construction equipment and left the area without ever being seen by anyone... *all in under an hour.*


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

Terral said:


> This silly question was already answered for you here. The answer to your question is: The Inside-job murderers working for George Bush, Karl Rove, Dickless Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld PLANTED IT THERE. These 100-ton Jetliners have *'two' *(2) 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines and not just one little piece of rust that easily fits in the back of one pickup truck (you idiot).


You call me an idiot, but you can't even answer my question!  I know you think that engine must have been planted (that's why I started this thread), I'm asking you HOW did those NWO agents plant it there without being noticed, not who you think planted it there (I really doubt Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld planted it themselves), or how they transported it there to plant it.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Mar 31, 2010)




----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

Why cant the wreckage be viewed by independent crash investigators..
Why cant all video of the pentagon strike be declassified


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

tom clancy said:


>



where is bin laden..is it secret ?.are all these people keeping that secret all this time ??


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> Why cant the wreckage be viewed by independent crash investigators..
> Why cant all video of the pentagon strike be declassified


That's fine with me eots, but I've asked you nicely to keep this thread on topic, or stay off here.

How did they plant that engine in the ground without being noticed?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> Why cant the wreckage be viewed by independent crash investigators..
> Why cant all video of the pentagon strike be declassified



tell us what videos of the pentagon crash are still classified.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> tom clancy said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I can assure you Bin Laden is in Pakistan..  

We can't cross to the Pakistani Borders to even go find him.. We just have to hope they find him.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > why cant the wreckage be viewed by independent crash investigators..
> ...



who said it was planted in the ground ?..


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 31, 2010)

What injun ?  I don't see no injun !!


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Ah, because the photo shows that engine coming out of the ground?


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

well for one.ITS A PHOTO...and its awfully small..got any serial numbers off that engine..can an independent investigator verify it ?.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> well for one.ITS A PHOTO...and its awfully small..got any serial numbers off that engine..can an independent investigator verify it ?.



it was evidence at a trial. its been proven in a court of law.


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> well for one.ITS A PHOTO...and its awfully small


Are you suggesting it was photoshopped?  Go to my 1st post for the link that will lead you to a hi-res version of it if that one's too small for you.



> got any serial numbers off that engine..can an independent investigator verify it ?.


Why would that matter in your case? You are suggesting that no plane crashed there, so that engine must have been planted according to you.  Your NWO agents wouldn't have to plant one of Flight 93's engines, but any plane's similar engine to fool everyone. 

But the fact is a plane engine was unearthed under the crater, regardless what plane it came from. How did they plant it?


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > well for one.ITS A PHOTO...and its awfully small..got any serial numbers off that engine..can an independent investigator verify it ?.
> ...



so your answer is no


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > well for one.ITS A PHOTO...and its awfully small
> ...



I never said no plane crashed there..


----------



## Tom Clancy (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Eots said it was shot down..  By whom? Still waiting.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

I never said it was shot down..I said there has not been a proper investigation of the crash as do several former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators have publicly stated such


----------



## 420ish (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> I never said it was shot down


You never said it didn't crash, you never said it was shot down.  What other options are there?!

Regardless, there was an engine unearthed from that field.  How did it get there?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


your buddy, terral


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

420ish said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I never said it was shot down
> ...



this is most likely why you are not a  president of the air accident investigation board


----------



## Terral (Mar 31, 2010)

Hi Eots:



eots said:


> I never said no plane crashed there..



I did (my Flight 93 Topic) and no 100-ton Jetliner crashed at the Pentagon either (my Pentagon Topic). 

This Is What Really Happened On 9/11.

This 420 guy is here to push Official Govt LIES about the 9/11 Inside Job, just like Fizz, Gamolon, Retired Guy, CandyCorn, Ollie, DiveBomb, so on and so forth ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Eots:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



first of all, you still lie about how much the jet weighs. its 64 tons not 100 tons. you've been shown this before yet you still lie about it. 

secondly, why are you accusing people of pushing anything? all the evidence..... ALL THE EVIDENCE points to flight 93 crashing in PA.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 31, 2010)

420ish said:


> If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've never studied flight 93 and don't know much about it at all but your question is the logical fallacy of begging the question.  You're trying to claim some obscure part in the ground is evidence of 93......because someone says it is from 93 without independent verification.


----------



## Zona (Mar 31, 2010)

Midnight Marauder said:


> They have this "can't believe the government" deal going, but also are warmers.
> 
> You can't beat that dichotomy!



Dont forget about the birthers.


----------



## Zona (Mar 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?
> ...



Uhm, so an aircraft engine happened to be there under the ground?  

Happens all the time.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

Zona said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


LOL
even a dumbass like Zona can see the stupidity of the troofer morons


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

this is one of the funniest threads ever!!! 

the level of denial and hypocrisy by the twoofers is ridiculous!!! some of the same people that insist buildings were blown apart with absolutely no evidence at all are complaining that evidence presented in a court of law is not "independently verified" and therefore doesnt really exist.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2010)

fizz said:


> this is one of the funniest threads ever!!!
> 
> The level of denial and hypocrisy by the twoofers is ridiculous!!! Some of the same people that insist buildings were blown apart with absolutely no evidence
> 
> at all are complaining that evidence presented in a court of law is not "independently verified" and therefore doesnt really exist.




the evidence is in te nature of the collapses and the failure of nist to determine the cause of the collapse


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > this is one of the funniest threads ever!!!
> ...


NIST DID determine a cause of collapse
you just are too fucking delusional to admit it


----------



## Fizz (Mar 31, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > this is one of the funniest threads ever!!!
> ...



proof please. as already stated, the collapses and causes were determined by experts in their fields.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

Aug. 21, 2007: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
PDF Version      Article on OpEdNews

Summary: James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable." 
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> Aug. 21, 2007: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> PDF Version      Article on OpEdNews
> 
> Summary: James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


now show where he thinks it was a controlled demolition or shut the fuck up


----------



## Tom Clancy (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Aug. 21, 2007: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> ...



He can't, Proof now a days is someone who is an "Expert" and calls for an Investigation with no Proof of Back up.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Aug. 21, 2007: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> ...



he states there is no evidence the official story is correct and that real investigation and fact finding was blocked and detterd..so there is no credible proof the official story is correct


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


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




its not some "Expert" moron it was the lead investigator from 2001 -2007


----------



## Tom Clancy (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Still is an "Expert" Either way, where is his proof? Facts?

Nothing?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...


and Eots has been told that he is taking the man out of context to make claims the man doesnt support

he doesnt agree with the findings of the report that the cause of the collapse of WTC7 was due to thermal expansion
he believes it was something else(i dont remember what exactly) but he doesnt believe it was a controlled demolition or any type of an insiude job
and he called the the troofer morons "crazies will be crazy"


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...



exactly he is saying after 7 years of investigation all they had to support the official story was a questionable theory and no evidence and furthermore he puts much of the blame for that on efforts from within the government to block the investigation


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


source you use for that bullshit


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

your bullshit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> your bullshit


you lie about what that man says
stop it


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > your bullshit
> ...



I posted his exact words and provided links to the statements




can you provide a link to this statement dwivecon ?



> and he called the the troofer morons "crazies will be crazy"


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


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


his words dont say what you claim, you are too fucking delusional to get it
and NO fucktard, i cant link you to an email


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

I make no claim to his words I simply post his statements with links and the words speak for themselves..you can provide no link to your statement because you are a LIAR and no such statement exist


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

Zona said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



You don't read very well eh?  Like a few others you must be too slow to comprehend the fuk up by the OP author.  The government exhibit does not say it is an engine.  It say it is an "airplane part."  But never mind simple reading.....stick to your dummass comments.


----------



## Zona (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




And even an ass like you can see how dumb the birthers are.  Birthers, tea baggers, Troooofers.  Same thing.


----------



## Zona (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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




Fair enough.  so in the crater of an aircraft crash, they found an "airplane part".  OH my god, the conspiracy!  

Dumbass comment indeed.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

Zona said:


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




The OP author makes a challenge with completely misleading/false info.  That is all I pointed out.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> [
> he states there is no evidence the official story is correct and that real investigation and fact finding was blocked and detterd..so there is no credible proof the official story is correct



thats not what he says at all!! you fucking liar!! 

where does he say there is no evidence the official story is correct?

in reference to your "fact finding was blocked" statement, he is clearly referring to ATF not being brought into the investigation. its not a statement about people higher up in government influencing the investigation. its criticizing an internal matter.
"_Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information._"

another statement in the article:
_Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NISTs conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives._


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 1, 2010)

The twoofer idiots are so stupid. The think (ok, they don't think, they link) that they can spin comments that were made by others into whatever they want them to be and people will accept it.

The plane engine is is the ground because the plane crashed there after being hijacked by islamic terrorists, killing all those on board.


Whenever any of you delusional fucking treasonous lunatics get any actual evidence, let me know.
Oh, wait you won't have to because it will be front page news all over the world.

If it ever happens.........


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The government exhibit does not say it is an engine.  It say it is an "airplane part."


They say "airplane part" on most of those exhibit photos.  

But if you need another resources stating it's an engine, read this:



> Black box recovered at Shanksville site - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
> 
> By Richard Gazarik and Robin Acton
> TRIBUNE-REVIEW
> ...








If you still refuse to believe it is an engine, then how did they plant this "airplane part" without being noticed?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The bottom line is he does not accept NIST's reports.  You can be honest and admit that or divecon your way around that fact.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



no. the bottom line is he is critical of them.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The government exhibit does not say it is an engine.  It say it is an "airplane part."
> ...




What is the problem?  Why is it so difficult to admit this OP is based on bullshit?  I will repeat:  I've never studied flight 93 so I have no opinion on it one way or the other.  But what I do have is literacy and common sense and the Op claims to have evidence of an engine from flight 93....while providing no evidence.  You want to ignore that and deflect?  At least Zona was honest in response.

As for the engines......are you saying they only found one?  Did they ever try a serial number match on one or both of the engines?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




You chose the divecon route.

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

He straight up says they did not definitely find cause.  That is not simply being critical.  It's saying their report does not support their conclusion.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> What is the problem?  Why is it so difficult to admit this OP is based on bullshit?  I will repeat:  I've never studied flight 93 so I have no opinion on it one way or the other.  But what I do have is literacy and common sense and the Op claims to have evidence of an engine from flight 93....while providing no evidence.  You want to ignore that and deflect?  At least Zona was honest in response.
> 
> As for the engines......are you saying they only found one?  Did they ever try a serial number match on one or both of the engines?



wow, you have said some pretty moronic shit but this is near the top of the list. how can you possibly look at a picture of an airplane engine coming out of the ground at the crash site of flight 93 and say "while providing no evidence" with a straight face?


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> What is the problem?  Why is it so difficult to admit this OP is based on bullshit?  I will repeat:  I've never studied flight 93 so I have no opinion on it one way or the other.


Contradict yourself much?



> But what I do have is literacy and common sense and the Op claims to have evidence of an engine from flight 93....while providing no evidence.  You want to ignore that and deflect?  At least Zona was honest in response.


Technically, I never said it was an engine from Flight 93.  I just asked how was that engine planted.



> As for the engines......are you saying they only found one?  Did they ever try a serial number match on one or both of the engines?


Two were found, but how did they plant that one found in the hole?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > What is the problem?  Why is it so difficult to admit this OP is based on bullshit?  I will repeat:  *I've never studied flight 93* so I have no opinion on it one way or the other.  But what I do have is literacy and common sense and the Op claims to have evidence of an engine from flight 93....while providing no evidence.  You want to ignore that and deflect?  At least Zona was honest in response.
> ...



and while admitting he never "studied flt 93" still persists in accusing others of not offering evidence which clownlight wouldn't look at anyway.

clownlite is just another treasonous twoofer delusional retard


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > What is the problem?  Why is it so difficult to admit this OP is based on bullshit?  I will repeat:  I've never studied flight 93 so I have no opinion on it one way or the other.
> ...




"technically?"  Rotfl.  If you aren't saying that engine is from flight 93 then the op is moot.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




I did look at the evidence given by the OP.  That is how I pointed out the evidence exhibit never says what part it is or which aircraft it came from.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > What is the problem?  Why is it so difficult to admit this OP is based on bullshit?  I will repeat:  I've never studied flight 93 so I have no opinion on it one way or the other.  But what I do have is literacy and common sense and the Op claims to have evidence of an engine from flight 93....while providing no evidence.  You want to ignore that and deflect?  At least Zona was honest in response.
> ...




What is your evidence that is an engine from flight 93?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> "technically?"  Rotfl.  If you aren't saying that engine is from flight 93 then the op is moot.



no it isnt, jackass.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> "technically?"  Rotfl.  If you aren't saying that engine is from flight 93 then the op is moot.


No it's not.  How did that "airplane part" get planted there?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



read the article, and the links contained therein, you will find the answers you ask for.

maybe you need to get someone to read it to you..............as you have demonstrated you can't.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > "technically?"  Rotfl.  If you aren't saying that engine is from flight 93 then the op is moot.
> ...



Since you "technically" are not saying it is an engine from 93 then what are you saying?


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Since you "technically" are not saying it is an engine from 93 then what are you saying?


It's what I've been saying for 6 pages now, HOW WAS THAT PART PLANTED?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Since you "technically" are not saying it is an engine from 93 then what are you saying?
> ...




Is there any evidence it was planted?  I've never said it was planted so why ask me?  So basically your op is to ask how a non descript part was planted even though you have no evidence it was planted nor where it came from.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



jesus christ, you are a moron.

it was claimed it was planted in a different thread. rather than hijacking the thread he started a new one. whats your fucking problem?

he never said he had evidence it was planted.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



He said he never claimed it was from 93 so what's the point?  What is your evidence that is from 93? (you ignored that once)

Also, you still trying to claim Dr. Q accepts NIST's report after I pointed out he said:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."


He's saying NIST's Report does not support their conclusion.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

yes but divecon claims he received a _private e-mail _from DR Q in which he says he _hates toofers and they are crazies_..but he cant post the proof because it is full of _private information_ and if it gets out DR Q is fearful of toofer morons stalking him...so..I guess all his official statements are henceforth...debwunked


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> yes but divecon claims he received a _private e-mail _from DR Q in which he says he _hates toofers and they are crazies_..but he cant post the proof because it is full of _private information_ and if it gets out DR Q is fearful of toofer morons stalking him...so..I guess all his official statements are henceforth...debwunked



I guess it has escaped OCTAs that Dr. Q is a troofer.  As for the email....sounds like something he would claim then get indignant when proven he can't support it.  I don't even know why you care what he says.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> What is your evidence that is from 93?


What else could it be from?


----------



## Terral (Apr 1, 2010)

Hi Curve:



CurveLight said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Hey Curve: Wake the hell up already. This 420 guy is asking a STUPID and SILLY question that has already been answered. These Official Govt Cover Story Idiots are wasting your time with stupidity 'and' without ever addressing 'the evidence' looking them in the face (my Flight 93 Topic, my answer to 420, and another, and another). 

Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld paid someone to plant a rusty piece of junk under the green grass in the *Diamond T. Mine Excavation* that was abandoned in 1996. Flight 93 and Flight 175 landed in Cleveland and these goofballs are playing you as their fool ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]How Was The Rusty Evidence Planted??? That Is Easy! Very Carefully You Moron![/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## Zona (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > What is the problem?  Why is it so difficult to admit this OP is based on bullshit?  I will repeat:  I've never studied flight 93 so I have no opinion on it one way or the other.  But what I do have is literacy and common sense and the Op claims to have evidence of an engine from flight 93....while providing no evidence.  You want to ignore that and deflect?  At least Zona was honest in response.
> ...



There happened to be airplane parts exactly where flight 93 hit the earth.  Everyone knows this.  

In fact, no planes hit the towers, that was all CGI.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

Terral said:


> This 420 guy is asking a STUPID and SILLY question that has already been answered.


You never answered it.  Stop lying.



> These Official Govt Cover Story Idiots are wasting your time with stupidity


You truthers are wasting our time be not answering these easy question if you think it's so stupid.



> Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld paid someone to plant a rusty piece of junk under the green grass in the *Diamond T. Mine Excavation* that was abandoned in 1996.


They paid someone to plant it back in 1996?!



> How Was The Rusty Evidence Planted??? That Is Easy! Very Carefully You Moron!


Who's the moron?!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


my gawd you are a dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


hey dipshit, how about because it was FOUND AT THE SITE FLIGHT 93 CRASHED AT


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


> yes but divecon claims he received a _private e-mail _from DR Q in which he says he _hates toofers and they are crazies_..but he cant post the proof because it is full of _private information_ and if it gets out DR Q is fearful of toofer morons stalking him...so..I guess all his official statements are henceforth...debwunked


you are a complete fucktard
i never said anything of the sort
i DID email the man, and got a reply
he did say "crazies will be crazy" in regards to what YOU said as i sent him a link to YOUR post
and because the email contains personal info about ME (IE my email address and real name) i will not post it, got that yet dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






So if I don't believe your theory with evidence weaker than cooked angel hair pasta it means I haven't "woken up?"  Here's a thought: i'll form my own opinions after I've done the research.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?

This thread was for people who don't think a plane crashed there (it states that in my OP).


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes but divecon claims he received a _private e-mail _from DR Q in which he says he _hates toofers and they are crazies_..but he cant post the proof because it is full of _private information_ and if it gets out DR Q is fearful of toofer morons stalking him...so..I guess all his official statements are henceforth...debwunked
> ...



so remove the name and e-mail and post the body of the e-mail...liar


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



so one should just assume any rusty part in the vicinity is from flt 93 ? thinking like that is most likely why you are not one of two former presidents of the air crash investigation board calling for a proper investigation


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

eots said:


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




I have no idea why you care what he thinks.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes but divecon claims he received a _private e-mail _from DR Q in which he says he _hates toofers and they are crazies_..but he cant post the proof because it is full of _private information_ and if it gets out DR Q is fearful of toofer morons stalking him...so..I guess all his official statements are henceforth...debwunked
> ...




Basically you just admitted you think so highly of Eots you had to get the opinion of someone like Dr Q.  Haha....holy fuk you are a joke.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 1, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?
> 
> This thread was for people who don't think a plane crashed there (it states that in my OP).



You weaseled out of your op when it was pointed out the court evidence you linked did not support your claim.  You should have manned up instead of pulling that "technical" rabbit out of your hat.  
For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight?  Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight, what do you think happened at Shanksville?
> ...



talk about weasel...

you cant even answer a simple question!!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


hey, maybe he can find out how many modes a wndows mobile phone has


----------



## 420ish (Apr 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


I guess my question was too hard for him!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Tell us again how your phone doesn't have a Flight Mode:

Activate or Deactivate the Flight Mode for the Nokia E71x

Symptom:
Nokia E71x Stuck in Airplane Mode
Nokia E71x Stuck in Flight Mode

Error: "Unable to connect. Please verify that airplane mode is off and you have network coverage, then try again."
https://www.wireless.att.com/suppor...alsCategory=Getting+Started&tutorialId=733360


You're such a sooper stoopid fuk.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

420ish said:


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



So you're another stoopid fuk.  Did you happen to miss where I said i'll form my opinions after I've studied it?  No, wait.  I believe you even quoted my post where I said that.  As for not answering questions:

For 93, what are the best pics available for the crash sight?  Did I read earlier the FBI concluded its investigation on 9/24/01?

You're one of the bitches claiming to know what happened yet you ignored those questions just like you ignored the fact you weaseled out of admitting your fukked up OP.  See ya bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie.  Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.  You lie and say he is only "critical" of it.  Keep on lying you useless ****.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



still can't answer his question, eh?

weasel!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



That has been answered but you're such a dishonest cocksucking worthless **** you have to continue to lie.  Just like when you ignored when asked what evidence you have that part in the op pic is from flight 93 and.......what part is it?

Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.  You lie and say he is only "critical" of it.  Keep on lying you useless ****.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.  You lie and say he is only "critical" of it.  Keep on lying you useless ****.



What exactly does that mean Curve? If you read Dr. Q's paper, you would realize that the ONLY thing he disagrees with is the way the collapse was caused/initiated. 

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The towers collapsed due to structural failure. No explosives, no thermite, no DEW, no conspiracy.

Dr. Q says in his paper that he does not agree that it was the columns, but the floor trusses that failed. Or did you forget to read his paper and see what his conclusion was? 

I dare you to comment on this. I am really curious as to why you consider Dr. Q's disagreement with NIST important as to the CAUSE of the collapse when BOTH come to the conclusion that the towers collapsed due to structural failure due to fires and heat.

Then again, you DO like to twist words and quote mine to prove your point while leaving out relevant items.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

Here is a quote from Dr. Q's paper:



			
				Dr. Quintere said:
			
		

> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says was not an issue.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



people see airplane crashing. rush to the scene. find crash site. find plane parts. find DNA from passengers on flight 93.

gee..... where could the plane parts have possibly come from??

you really are a moron. now go clean your room like mommy told you and stop playing on the internet with the big boys.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.



Here is where I hand your ass to you.

What is NIST's "conclusion" as you understand it?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 2, 2010)

Hey curvey, Is the new iPhone for Verizon going to have a flight mode? 

How will I access the flight mode on the new iPhone for Verizon?

Please tell us oh cell phone guru!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.  You lie and say he is only "critical" of it.  Keep on lying you useless ****.
> ...




You are a dumfuk.  I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives.  Try to pay attention.  

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."

Do you understand what that says?  He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period.  Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You are a dumfuk.  I never said Dr Q made any claims about explosives.  Try to pay attention.
> 
> "In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."
> 
> Do you understand what that says?  He is saying NIST's report does not support its conclusion. Period.  Even if he agrees it was structural failure that does not negate his assessment of their Report.



once again your lack of reading comprehension abilities are woefully exposed.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



So all your pointing out is the fact Dr. Q disagrees with the fact that NIST thinks the collapse was caused by fires weakening columns and that Dr. Q believes that the collapse was caused by fires weakening the floor trusses?

Is that it?

You mean to tell me that you want a new investigation into the towers because you are concerned that the changes that may be made to structural design procedures, building codes, and fire codes may not be "correct" because they used the incorrect structural failure mechanism?

I'll ask you again.

What exactly, the way you think you understand it, is NIST's conclusion that Dr.Q disagrees with?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



No, YOU pay attention fuckhead. 

For all of us here to see, please state the conclusion as you understand it, that NIST has made that Dr.Q disagrees with.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



You are one reeeely stoopid bitch.  Last time rocket scientist:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."


My pointing that out stems from fizzdickhead lying and saying Dr. Q is only critical of the Report when clearly Dr Q is saying NIST has not found "definitive cause."

What is so staggering and intellectually overpowering about that simple point that has caused your panties to get so bunched up?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> "In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."
> 
> 
> My pointing that out stems from fizzdickhead lying and saying Dr. Q is only critical of the Report when clearly Dr Q is saying NIST has not found "definitive cause."
> ...



what fucking part dont you understand?

please explain how the statements "only critical of the report" and "has not found definitive cause" are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.



What is NIST's conclusion that you are saying Dr. Q does not agree with?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > "In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause..."
> ...




You're too dishonest to admit the obvious which is why you stayed quiet when 420ish backed out of his op.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



I get it now.

You agree with Dr. Q and NIST that the cause of the tower's collapse was caused by structural failures due to heat from fires, but you just don't know if it was the columns that failed (NIST's belief) or the floor truss connections that failed (Dr. Q's belief) and would like an independent investigation to clarify which is correct.

Is that right?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

eots,

I'll ask you the same thing.

Do you agree with Dr. Q and NIST that the cause of the tower's collapse was caused by structural failures due to heat from fires, but you just don't know if it was the columns that failed (NIST's belief) or the floor truss connections that failed (Dr. Q's belief) and would like an independent investigation to clarify which is correct?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > what fucking part dont you understand?
> ...



actually, i usually just skip over your posts because you never have anything useful to say. sorry i didnt give you the immediate attention you so obviously crave.

i see you cant answer a simple question.

...again.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Just like you ignored the fact Dr Q straight up says NIST's report does not support its conclusion.
> ...



Still trying to deflect like a bitch eh?  Do you not know what Dr. Q has said?  I'll try to help but since I'm not trained in helping the seriously mentally handicapped fuks like yourself I don't know how much can be done....except pointing to what Dr Q stated:

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," 

And...


"I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply."


And....

"It says that the core columns, uninsulated due
to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place."

And...


"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."


What else do you want to try and deflect and whine about bitch?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


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





Thank you for lying again you useless ****.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



point out the lie please.

otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass with no basis in fact.

exactly like your twoofer buddy cristophera.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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




You agree with Dr. Q and NIST that the cause of the tower's collapse was caused by structural failures due to heat from fires, but you just don't know if it was the columns that failed (NIST's belief) or the floor truss connections that failed (Dr. Q's belief) and would like an independent investigation to clarify which is correct.

Is that right?


----------



## 420ish (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> when 420ish backed out of his op.


I didn't back out.  I'm just patiently waiting for you truthers to answer my simple question.  Stop with the cat and mouse game and answer the question.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


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





Thass easy you useless bitch.  I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion.  But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened.  The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Thass easy you useless bitch.  I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion.  But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened.  The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.


You are calling me a **** because I asked a simple question you truthers can't answer?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > when 420ish backed out of his op.
> ...




Your op question asks how an engine was planted.  I pointed out your op link does not provide any evidence of an engine and you weaseled by saying you never "technically" claimed it was an engine from flight 93 you lying diklik.  You're so much like fizzbitch that 420cuntish looks like one of his sock puppets.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Thass easy you useless bitch.  I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion.  But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened.  The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.



so you admit you didnt answer the question because you have yet to form an opinion and then accuse me of lying when i say you didnt answer the question.

you really are fucked up.


----------



## 420ish (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Then I changed it especially for you to how did that "airplane part" (even though I should you an article that said it was an engine) to make it easier for you, but you still can't answer it.

For the sake of argument, who cares what plane that piece came from.  How was it planted there?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Thass easy you useless bitch.  I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion.  But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened.  The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.
> ...




You're a **** because you're a dishonest shitbag.

You back out of your op when I point out you provide no evidence of an engine from flight 93.

You ask me how it got planted even though I've never claimed it was planted.

You accuse me of not answering "what happened at shanksville" after I clearly said I will form an opinion after I studied it.

Keep embarrassing yourself you useless bitch because you have a whole fraternity just like you in fizzbitch, gamcock, candyass, and a few others.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

420ish said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...




for the tenth time you dumfuk:

I never said anything was planted there.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...



he never said you did, jackass!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Thass easy you useless bitch.  I've clearly stated I've never studied flight 93 and when I do I will form an opinion.  But you, like 420cuntish want to lie and say I didn't answer about what happened.  The problem is you bitches are so co-dependent you can't grasp the concept of research prior to conclusion.
> ...



Holy fuk you are STOOPID!  If someone asks you what time it is and you don't know so you respond with "I don't know" wouldn't it be pretty fuxxing dum for that person to accuse you of not answering??

Here's a clue you coksucking ****:  you do not get to accuse someone of not answering because you don't like the answer.  Fuk you are a waste of time.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



if someone asks a crowd of people "what time is it" wouldnt it be really fucking stupid to shout out "i dont know"??? 

so you cant answer the question. you are just here because you like typing apparently. you are completely useless and obviously have nothing of any meaning to contribute anywhere.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



You ignore the fact he keeps asking me that question you dishonest shitbag.  If I've never made the claim then why keep asking?  You have achieved divedik status along with Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



because you keep posting in the thread asking the question!!!

just when i thought you couldnt be a bigger moron you prove me wrong.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 2, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



Wot


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


it doesnt, dipshit
it has an OFFLINE mode
which you have repeatedly proven


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 2, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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


SEE, minutia is what they point at and claim an inside job
these people are fucking NUTZ


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

420ish said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



any thinking peson would require indentifcation of the part and verification it came from flt 93


----------



## Trojan (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



If they can plant the engine, why do you think they could not fake a serial number?


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2010)

trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



who said it is an engine ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 2, 2010)

eots said:


> who said it is an engine ?



who said it isnt?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Except I never claimed nor implied Dr Q's assessment pointed to an inside job.  Why is it you punks cannot discuss the issue and be honest at the same time?

It's also fun to keep pointing out how you lie about your phone because it is less painful than admitting I completely pwn you.  Everyone knows offline mode is another term for flight/airplane mode but your buddies on here are ruled by emotions....like you....so they won't call you out because they are so pissed at me for pwning them.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Trojan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...




Due to dishonest fuks (not you personally) I have to make it very clear I am not saying anything was planted but I can still answer your question.  (I predict some loser will claim in a day or so I said parts were planted for 93 even though I'm clearly not making that claim)

Faking a serial number on a commercial aircraft engine would be extremely difficult because that number is recorded in many maintenance log books and it would be almost impossible to obtain access to all of them not to mention the risk of the actual engine with that serial number being discovered in operational mode in a plane.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


i did not lie about my phone, and dipshit, you proved i was correct in stating my phone does not have an airplane or flight mode, it has an OFFLINE mode
keep showing how fucking stupid and how you concentrate on MINUTIA (like my phone modes)


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


then the question doesnt apply to you, DIPSHIT


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

eots said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Thinking people don't accept the OCT without questioning it.  These punks swallowed the OCT dick and never looked back and now they are choking to death and too proud to admit it.  

So far it doesn't look like anything was planted at the crash site but in searching for pics of the crash site there is a dearth of visible access.  In looking at pics of crash sites from other commercial jets there seems to be inconsistency in the amount and quality of identifiable debris.    

A good example is TWA Flight 800.  This is a 747 that exploded midair and crashed in the fucking ocean but look at how much they recovered from the OCEAN to reconstruct a large portion of the plane.
Http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800?wasRedirected=true

Other points of comparison:

The fbi investigated for 16 months for flight 800 but announced conclusion of the 93 investigation after 13 DAYS.

The NTSB investigated for FOUR YEARS on flight 800.  For flight 93........fucking zilch.  In fact it claims:

"The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report
or open a public docket."
Http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00106&key=1

The FBI is not equipped to do full aircraft crash investigations so how did an ill equipped organization complete it's crash investigation in less than 13 fuxxing days?  How did they calculate they recovered 95% of the airplane yet cannot do a reconstruction like we see with flight 800?  I'm sure the NTSB helped out but get real.....when in the fuck has the NTSB have ever come close to completing an investigation of this magnitude in less than two weeks? (and they are fully equipped).

Another point is the FBI did a parallel investigation with the NTSB on flight 800.  Probably because the FBI is not equipped to do aircraft investigations as that is in the field of the NTSB.  So why didn't the same approach happen with flight 93?


It must be reiterated:  look at the reconstruction from a commercial jet that blew up and crashed in the ocean....at 16,000 feet.  If they could recover that much why couldn't they recover even half as much for 93?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Hmmm......

"Other names include airplane mode, offline mode, and standalone mode."


Doesn't that say OFFLINE MODE is another name for airplane/flight mode?  Keep lying you pathetic fuk.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



The question asked by Trojan was about faking serial numbers.....not planted parts.  Thanks for proving again you can't read or be honest.  Hell, anyone who reads your posts and accepts the OCT should realize how scary it is to be in agreement with a dumdik like you.....


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


again, MY phone, the Nokia E71x has an OFFLINE mode
it doesnt matter one bit if the OFFLINE mode can be USED the same as those other modes
i was still correct in stating my phone does not have those modes
dipshit
this is the MINUTIA you fucking moronic troofers are known for


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


WOW, you are too fucking stupid for words


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Lol...

"Other names include airplane mode, offline mode, and standalone mode."

You dumfuk.  All the names mean the exact same thing.  The focus here is not your phone.  It's showing how dishonest you are and how your OCTA buddies can't even be honest.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


again, dipshit, you are concentrating on MINUTIA
that you dont see that is truly astounding

it is YOU thats being dishonest
my phone still doesnt have that mode
and you have repeatedly proven that fact yet you still persist in saying i'm being dishonest when in fact, it is YOU being dishonest


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

curvey fell into the phone trap again!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> curvey fell into the phone trap again!


yup


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



My phones both have an offline mode, SOFTWIRED I think, into the phone itself.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




"Other names include airplane mode, offline mode, and standalone mode."


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


right
OTHER NAMES
and what was the NAME i said MY phone had, DIPSHIT?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Homebody is obsessed with phones isn't he?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

My phone does not have an airplane mode........


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> My phone does not have an airplane mode........


does it have a flight mode?
tell us what model and maybe bentright will look it up for you


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > My phone does not have an airplane mode........
> ...



which one, I have two..........


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


well, post both, bentright has nothing better to do that look up stupid MINUTIA


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I think he should guess based on the fact that they don't have an airplane mode.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


oh, i'm sure he will find another mode and claim THAT is the airplane mode


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

stole chrissy's avatar, spooky huh?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Originally you didn't even know you had Offline mode you lying fuk.  You claimed your phone didn't have an airplane/flight mode so I posted the link for the tutorial called:

Activate/Deactivate FLIGHT MODE on a Nokia E71x.

You respond by saying the manufacturer calls it "Offline" mode and you use that to ignore the tutorial.  So then I point out all of those names mean the same fuxxing thing:  they are all Flight modes:

Fight Mode
"Other names include airplane mode, offline mode, and standalone mode."

I keep going on this because I want to see how long your buddies keep letting you lie.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 3, 2010)

420ish said:


> If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I put it there before taking the photo.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


i said my phone didnt have an airplane or flight mode, and it doesnt
you have PROVEN that 

yet you still persist in calling the OFFLINE mode the same thing when anyone with a functioning brain would know that even though it MIGHT be used for the same purpose, it is NOT the same thing


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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





Really?  Is that why there are several links for your phone giving instructions on to turn on FLIGHT MODE you dumfuk?

Http://att.deviceanywhere.com/tutor...=1995&cid=2159974&conversationPropagation=end

Keep lying you pathetic fuk.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


that is AT&T responding to a customer asking how to turn it "off/on"
the phone doesnt have that in it thus the customer asked
you clearly have no concept of tech support


----------



## Fizz (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



even your tutorial says to SCROLL UP TO* OFFLINE *you fucking moron!! 

AND IT HAS A PICTURE OF IT!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




Take divecon's dick out of your mouth so you can see the computer screen.  The name of the tutorial is how to turn FLGHT MODE ON OR OFF.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Keep proving how fuxxing stoopid you are.  That was not a customer asking a question you lying ****.  It's a standard tutorial.  You go to the link, click on the second drop box and you'll get an option for a tutorial on how to:

Activate or Deactivate the Flight Mode for the Nokia E71x

Goal:
Activate or Deactivate the Flight Mode for the Nokia E71x

Symptom:
Nokia E71x Stuck in Airplane Mode
Nokia E71x Stuck in Flight Mode
https://www.wireless.att.com/suppor...alsCategory=Getting+Started&tutorialId=733360

Here's a totally different source pointing out flight mode is the same as offline mode:


Flight Mode
(Airplane Mode)
AKA "offline", "radios off", or "standalone" mode.
Http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/popup.php?gid=443

I love how you keep lying.......in the future when anyone asks why I simply say you are a lying reetawrded dipfuk I can link these posts and they will get a good laugh at you too!


----------



## Fizz (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Take divecon's dick out of your mouth so you can see the computer screen.  The name of the tutorial is how to turn FLGHT MODE ON OR OFF.



right jackass. and the tutorial says to put it in OFFLINE MODE!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Take divecon's dick out of your mouth so you can see the computer screen.  The name of the tutorial is how to turn FLGHT MODE ON OR OFF.
> ...




Look at the post above yours dummass.  You know, out of everyone in your OCTA group I figured you'd be the most honest one but you have fatally proven that wrong.  What exactly do you get out of lying for divedik, other than constantly embarrassing yourself?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

my phones have an offline mode.
I heard it was soft wired into them.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 3, 2010)

Holy fucking hell. Arguing over whether or not a mobile phone has a certain feature?
Fucking A.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



look at the fucking picture of the phone in your link.
AT&T Device Simulator
click on step 4.
see all the modes in there?
i see NORMAL, VIBRATE, MEETING, OUTDOOR, PAGER and.....

OFFLINE

do you see any airplane mode in that phone?
case closed.

now tell us all again how phones are HARDWIRED with airplane mode, jackass


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

Is the fucking A a new model? Who makes it?
Does it have an airplane mode?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Apr 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Is the fucking A a new model? Who makes it?
> Does it have an airplane mode?



*smack*


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



My phone isn't hard wired at all, it has bluetooth.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



Flight Mode:

AKA "OFFLINE...."
Phone Scoop

You also keep ignoring the name of the tutorial is how to activate/deactivate flight mode.  That is the difference between us...I'm being honest by admitting it says to click "offline mode" but you are being dishonest by ignoring the name of the tutorial and the fact "offline mode" is another term for "flight mode."

So do you keep lying for divecon because you love sucking his nuts or is it because you are so immature your emotions run your life?  I'm guessing....both.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



he has said all along it has offline mode. it doesnt have airplane mode. show me again on the phone where it has AIRPLANE MODE you fucking moron.

oh... and explain to us again how airplane mode is hardwired into phone!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




The dumfuk didn't know it had offline mode until I posted the tutorial link.  Your response is pure deflection because even if true it does nothing to address the facts:


Activate or Deactivate the Flight Mode for the Nokia E71x

Goal:
Activate or Deactivate the Flight Mode for the Nokia E71x

Symptom:
Nokia E71x Stuck in Airplane Mode
Nokia E71x Stuck in Flight Mode
https://www.wireless.att.com/suppor...alsCategory=Getting+Started&tutorialId=733360


Flight Mode:

AKA "OFFLINE...."
Phone Scoop

You also keep ignoring the name of the tutorial is how to activate/deactivate flight mode.  That is the difference between us...I'm being honest by admitting it says to click "offline mode" but you are being dishonest by ignoring the name of the tutorial and the fact "offline mode" is another term for "flight mode."

So do you keep lying for divecon because you love sucking his nuts or is it because you are so immature your emotions run your life?  I'm guessing....both.


If you have to click "Offline" to ACTIVATE FLIGHT MODE that means it has....FLIGHT MODE.

If a device has a button labeled "On/Off" would you claim it doesn't have a power button you fuxxing nuclear reetawrd?


It's extremely revealing of your character to keep lying and ignoring facts simply because you don't like the person posting the information.  It means you choose slavery to emotions over freedom in honesty.  This is the very character flaw that prevents you OCTAs on here from having an honest discussion about 9E.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



The truth is the reverse of what agents like this say. The proof of actions supporting treason are well documented. Robertson and a line of bullshit. 

All one has to see to realize the dishonesty of the agent is his attempt to deflect the thread by talking endlessly about cell phones. More Robertson et al and another line of bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




Now I'm an agent?  Lol.....the issue isn't cell phones.....it's showing even on something as simple as cell phones you ***** can't be honest and you constantly accuse people of being traitors only because they don't agree with......you.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



agent curvey;
you fail to recognize my impersonation of chrisofearya........laugh once in awhile, clean those cobwebs from between your ears!

Simply put the agent will say the reverse of the truth.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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



You have repeatedly claimed in all sincerity I'm a traitor for questioning 9E.  Likewise, claimed I am in alkida and I just want to see America destroyed.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Yup! So?
Actually the fact that you do not question but demonstrate you prefer a lie that  disparages your country over the truth that show her as a victim is what makes you a little treasonous traitor. Healthy questioning would be constructive, hating the country where your mother nurtured a baby curvey is treason. Even small statements like the new one you gave me for my sig line demonstrate you are an america hating tool of al qaida.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.  They are healthy questions and that is why your only reaction is to accuse people of being traitors.  Also, thank you very much for the free adverstisment in your sig.  It's the most productive thing you have done in the last ten years.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2010)

Just tell the damn fool that the engine was set to airplane mode and maybe fry-chief will shut the fuck up


----------



## candycorn (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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



You stole his avatar?  Sweet!


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Bullshit exposed from the agent of deception. Beware that the only information targeted for disinformation by the psyops is useful information. You have demonstrated that all your assumptions are based on your belief that USA govt was responsible for every calamity suffered in the past 100 years maybe longer.

thank you for the sig line and i am hoping for more humorous quotes from you.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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



The fact you resort to lying to try and discredit screams insecurity.  What are five healthy questions to ask about 9E?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



The fact that I have stated my support for the 911 commission report is not a lie. That is the accepted truth, accepted by all except the most severly brain-damaged lunatics as basically true. There are no lies there. There are minor mistakes that give no credence to your treasonous theories that your hated "Bush adminstration killed americans". 
If you have 5 questions that is your business, ask them yourself.


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

*100 million Americans question or find fault with the official 9/11 story *

Joel S. Hirschhorn
Intelligence Daily
Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:22 EDT 

The failure to rebuild the World Trade Center site in Manhattan has received endless attention. But public anger about this failed reconstruction should not been seen so negatively. After all, mental reconstruction has also still not been successful and is surely more needed, with too many Americans still accepting the official government story about 9/11. This, despite a huge amount of compelling evidence that elements of the US government played some role, despite a very large, active 9/11 truth movement, and despite an impressive number of highly credible people demanding a new investigation as documented at patriotsquestion911.com. 

In the recent Angus Reid Public Opinion survey of a representative national sample of American adults, 62 per cent of respondents disagree with the view that the "Sept. 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan." Far more Republicans disagree at 80 percent, compared to 66 percent of Independents and 55 percent of Democrats. 

Consistent with this is that two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) agree with the government commission that investigated the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which concluded that an attack was carried out by 19 hijackers who were members of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, led by Osama bin Laden. Though 12 per cent of respondents reject the commission's findings, one-in-five Americans (21 percent) are undecided. In particular, 35 percent of Independents and 34 percent of Democrats do not accept the official version, compared to just 20 percent of Republicans. 
100 million Americans question or find fault with the official 9/11 story -- Signs of the Times News


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> *100 million Americans question or find fault with the official 9/11 story *
> 
> Joel S. Hirschhorn
> Intelligence Daily
> ...



Thank you eots for actually posting a link, and part of an article that supports your view. I can only criticize the fact that you offer nothing in the way of your own opinion. Yet, that is not required, the link and article serve to start debate to which you can then answer and state your postition at that time.

See how easy that is curvey, take a lesson from your homeboy eots.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

candycorn said:


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



Yup, I stole chris's avatar and it has been a great distraction to him. Too funny huh?

Of course the side effects are to accuse everyone of being an agent and perp.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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



You're fuxxing beyond useless.  You just called many families who lost loved ones "severely brain damaged lunatics."


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Talk about fucking useless, you have any proof of that statement? Show me some, the only families of 911 victims I personally know think you truthers are cruel and treasonous, as well as profiting from your 9 year old attempted ruse.
Is this yet another statement you make with no backup information at all, claiming 'basic knowledge"?
I still have not seen anything in the way of evidence in any of your posts this morning.

You make these claims, back them up. I don't trust you or what you say, and doubt there is anyone except 911insidenutsack that does.

So back it up with something or be known as the disinformation agent of the day dumbass.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> *lies and bullshit replaced with some actual useful info;*
> 
> 
> Spam Oven Roasted Turkey Pitas
> ...



.....


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




You say it's healthy to question the government yet when asked for 5 healthy questions you ignore it.  You couldn't even come up with one!  That shows you're so fuxxing full of fear you can't think on your own.

As for whining about links....I didn't post anything I haven't posted before with links several times. Your threat that I will be seen as a dumass by you is laughable.  In case you haven't noticed I don't live my life ruled by fear like you OCTAs do.  That is why you're afraid to question 9E, why you're afraid to point out when your group fuks, afraid to openly disagree with each other and afraid to think on your own.  Your entire existence reeks of cowardice.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



I don't have 5 question about it, I am satisfied with the info presented. if you have 5 questions present them fuckwad.
I don't live my life in fear, I don't fear my own government, but YOU DO.

delusional retards always do.
and....








dismissed as a know-nothing troll who can't back up his own statements.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

1. 	Delusional Lunatic 	2 thumbs down love it hate it

buy delusional lunatic mugs, tshirts and magnets
A Lunatic (see Lunatic) who experiances times of delusions (see Delusional) in which you should seek shelter from them.
curvelight is a delusional lunatic.

from
Urban Dictionary: delusional lunatic


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

*Blowing the Whistle on FBI Crime Lab Abuses 
Posted on March 15, 2010 by David Colapinto 

 Another Reason FBI Whistleblower Protections Should Not Be Weakened*


The Washington Post and Associated Press are reporting that the Department of Justice failed to properly review more than 100 criminal cases that were prosecuted in the District of Columbia and which were suspected of being tainted by false forensic evidence from the FBI crime lab. These cases were ordered reviewed because in 1997 the DOJ Inspector General verified whistleblower allegations by Dr. Frederic Whitehurst about serious misconduct at the FBI lab.

Photo: Dr. Whitehurst

In December 2009, Donald Gates, an innocent man, who spent 28 years in jail after being convicted for crimes he did not commit, was set free by D.C. Superior Court after DNA testing confirmed that forensic testimony presented in court by FBI analyst Michael Malone was false. On the basis of Malone&#8217;s fabricated tests and false testimony Gates was wrongfully convicted of rape and murder.

Blowing the Whistle on FBI Crime Lab Abuses : Whistleblower Protection Blog


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> 1. 	Delusional Lunatic 	2 thumbs down love it hate it
> 
> buy delusional lunatic mugs, tshirts and magnets
> A Lunatic (see Lunatic) who experiances times of delusions (see Delusional) in which you should seek shelter from them.
> ...



weak empty bullshit is all you have


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

Curve Light | Facebook

Plastic Curve Light - 24HR (Item No. 103824-PL-24HR) from only &#36;1.55 ready to be imprinted by 4imprint Promotional Products


one of these is curvey and the other is a facebook page


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

you cant debate the issue..you have lost the debate


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> *Blowing the Whistle on FBI Crime Lab Abuses
> Posted on March 15, 2010 by David Colapinto
> 
> Another Reason FBI Whistleblower Protections Should Not Be Weakened*
> ...



valid points and valid link.
thanks eots
curvey, take a lesson from eots.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> you cant debate the issue..you have lost the debate



there was no debate until you presented info, curvey didn't have any.
I also agreed thatthe info you presented is a valid issue, and a problem that should be looked into.
I actually agreed with you, so there is still no debate.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > 1. 	Delusional Lunatic 	2 thumbs down love it hate it
> ...



nope, I have the official reports on my side, until you brought some info into the argument, which i agree with,  there was no challenge to that.
How can there be debate when curvey just wants to say "basic information" and not present any info except his own misguided opinion.

still, even you have not presented a credible challenge to the official reports.........they stand as the best info we have until proven otherwise.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *100 million Americans question or find fault with the official 9/11 story *
> ...


before you thank him, you should check out the site for credibility

Signs of the Times News for Sun, 04 Apr 2010


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




Dishonesty is your soulmate.


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



you are a joke dwivecon..are you saying the story is not crediable ?
or just mumbling shit out yer ass....again


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




Do you know of a site where OCTAs actually debate 9E?  I'm curious to see if there are some but taking a lazy way and asking you instead of googling.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Well, the site may have some out-there stuff but this particular story matches other reports i have read other places as well, taking into consideration the tweaking of info because it is a blog entry. Every blog entry has that. Still, it is better than no links at all. 

I am actually just happy to have eots post a link, and would encourage curvey to do the same thing. The lazy way out IS to google it curvey!

and curvey, you can check out abovetopsecret.com, but they will boot you if you just call others names, or do not post something to back up what your saying. They are not as lenient as USMB. But there you will find actual serious discussions.

bet you get booted the first day..........


----------



## Fizz (Apr 4, 2010)

candycorn said:


> You stole his avatar?  Sweet!



we should all do it at the same time....


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

fizz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > you stole his avatar?  Sweet!
> ...



it would be fitting given your herd mentality


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > You stole his avatar?  Sweet!
> ...


naw, too confusing


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2010)

wouldn't want to confuse the herd they might run off a cliff


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 4, 2010)

eots said:


> wouldn't want to confuse the herd they might run off a cliff


yeah, your herd is easily confused


----------



## candycorn (Apr 5, 2010)

eots is garbage


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...





You're a jackass.  I've posted the same links a few times showing family members and first responders fighting for a new investigation:


"With the federal government failing to deliver an impartial investigation, the 9/11 Families, First Responders and residents of New York City are moving ahead with the conviction that NYC CAN."
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now



"This momentous step forward in the quest for truth about September 11th will be looked upon with admiration across the globe."
Silencing of NYC Voters Will Not Go Unchallenged


Do you see where they say a "quest for the truth" about 9E?  That means they are truthers for not accepting the Commission report and it means you call them severely brain damaged lunatics.  Now dance bitch, dance.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


except they dont want an investigation into it being an inside job, they want a POLITICAL investigation


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




They want a NEW INVESTIGATION.  The reasons are irrelevant you dumfuk but keep trying to deflect......


Eta:  this is an excellent example of the dishonesty by OCTAs.  I never claimed they want a new investigation on suspicion of an inside job yet divedik tries to obfuscate with a strawman.  The fact they want a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions means they reject the Commission's Report.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> They want a NEW INVESTIGATION.  The reasons are irrelevant you dumfuk but keep trying to deflect......
> 
> 
> Eta:  this is an excellent example of the dishonesty by OCTAs.  I never claimed they want a new investigation on suspicion of an inside job yet divedik tries to obfuscate with a strawman.  The fact they want a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions means they reject the Commission's Report.



so go investigate. nobody is stopping them.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


it goes to the fact they DONT agree with you dipshits
dumbfuck


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Not everybody who wants a new investigation agrees on why but that does not subtract from the fact these family members and first responders demand a new investigation.  In fact, you even lie about what they want to attempt to deflect.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > They want a NEW INVESTIGATION.  The reasons are irrelevant you dumfuk but keep trying to deflect......
> ...




Read the link.  You will see who is stopping them.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


they dont want the investigation YOU want
so your using them is pathetic


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > They want a NEW INVESTIGATION.  The reasons are irrelevant you dumfuk but keep trying to deflect......
> ...




Read the link.  You will see who is stopping them.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Yes I do want the same investigation they want which is a new one beginning with zero assumptions.  Keep trying to deflect dumass.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


really?
is that really what THEY want
i've read what they want and that AINT it


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 5, 2010)

I think we will eventually see a new investigation into the investigation. In other words, there are enough discrepencies in the 911 commission report as well as the NIST report that it is my opinion that at some point in the future the methods and information used to compile those reports will be investigated.

IMO there is no chance a totally new investigation based on zero assumptions will be performed.
The "truth" movement that was calling for that to happen was made up mostly of the 'hate bush' crowd. Those people wanted to investigate to find some reason to prosecute Bush and others in his administration. Now that his term is over, there are not enough 'hate bushers' to effectively push for a political investigation. The "hate bushers" are the ones that really changed the truther movement from something reasonable to more of a political witch hunt. The "hate bushers" are also the ones that robbed the truth movement of credibility and changed it into the "twoofer movement".
Such is the price for the crowd who believes that the end justifies the means. The "hate bushers" were never really interested in 'truth', unless it gave them the ability to prosecute Bush for crimes.

I also think that since buildings fell down, planes are missing and people are dead, that "zero assumptions" is impossible. There will be assumptions based on those facts right up front, no way around it. Too many people saw the second plane fly into the tower in NYC, as well as saw the plane fly into the pentagon to ignore those "assumptions". 

Curvey, eots says he supports and works with groups that are pushing for such an investigation. If that is what you believe should happen then you should support and work for the same thing.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




You're a lying dumass.


Q: Will the new Commission have a bias or pre-determined conclusion about the events of September 11?

"The investigation will commence from a starting point of zero assumption or bias about the events of September 11. The investigation will be fact-driven and will use only the most rigorous legal standards for establishing the truth about those tragic events."

NYC Coalition For Accountability Now


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> I think we will eventually see a new investigation into the investigation. In other words, there are enough discrepencies in the 911 commission report as well as the NIST report that it is my opinion that at some point in the future the methods and information used to compile those reports will be investigated.
> 
> IMO there is no chance a totally new investigation based on zero assumptions will be performed.
> The "truth" movement that was calling for that to happen was made up mostly of the 'hate bush' crowd. Those people wanted to investigate to find some reason to prosecute Bush and others in his administration. Now that his term is over, there are not enough 'hate bushers' to effectively push for a political investigation. The "hate bushers" are the ones that really changed the truther movement from something reasonable to more of a political witch hunt. The "hate bushers" are also the ones that robbed the truth movement of credibility and changed it into the "twoofer movement".
> ...




You stated everyone except for "severely brain damaged lunatics" accept the Commission's Report and even after I prove many families and first responders demand a new investigation you fuxxing ignore it like the bitch you keep proving to be.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Q: Will the new Commission have a bias or pre-determined conclusion about the events of September 11?
> 
> "The investigation will commence from a starting point of zero assumption or bias about the events of September 11. The investigation will be fact-driven and will use only the most rigorous legal standards for establishing the truth about those tragic events."
> 
> NYC Coalition For Accountability Now



how many seconds do you think it will take them to go from zero assumptions to looking at the facts and seeing that two planes crashed into the WTC, one into the pentagon and one in PA?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > I think we will eventually see a new investigation into the investigation. In other words, there are enough discrepencies in the 911 commission report as well as the NIST report that it is my opinion that at some point in the future the methods and information used to compile those reports will be investigated.
> ...



are you saying that someone can not be a lunatic because they had a relative die on 9/11?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


ROFLMAO
read the REST of it, dipshit

btw, being "fact driven" will mean what YOU want as conclusions are already thrown out


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




Not at all.  But you are demonstrating your affinity for deflection.  Again.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




I quoted the full question and answer.  Keep trying to deflect you lying shitbag.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Not at all.  But you are demonstrating your affinity for deflection.  Again.



are you fucking kidding me?!! 

did you come up with an explanation on how the engine was planted? that was the topic of the thread before you hijacked it, jackass.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  But you are demonstrating your affinity for deflection.  Again.
> ...




You really suck at trying to deflect.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


the rest of the fucking PAGE you moron

actually not just the page, but the actual petition
they don't want an investigation into whether or not it was a terrorist attack, but the failures of the government to protect us from it
if you were the lying shitbag you call me, you wouldn't be a fucking moronic troofer asswipe


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




I never said they wanted an investigation into whether or not it was a terrorist attack so why keep trying to prop up your strawmen?  The fact is they are demanding a new investigation that begins with zero assumptions.  You're such a dishonest cocksucking bitch you can't even admit an obvious fact.  But we already knew that.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


dipshit, they dont question that the buildings collapsed or why


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




I didn't say anything about buildings either and I don't know of anyone who questions the buildings collapsed.  You're so desperate you're now making sooper stoopid statements.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



So you agree that the towers and WTC7 came down due to fire and structural failure due to said fires like NIST explains?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Wow......the Jersey Girls do not believe NIST explained the collapse of the Towers and support AE for 9/11 Truth: 

"In this case, it was of utmost importance to determine what actually caused the collapses to ensure the future safety of high-rise buildings. Since the government failed to do that, we applaud Mr. Richard Gage and the many other professionals who are spending their own time attempting to seek the truth.

Sincerely,

Patty Casazza
Lorie Van Auken
Mindy Kleinberg
Monica Gabrielle"
The ?Jersey Girls? Support Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Hey Divedik....how much does it suck that even when you try to deflect you prove you are fuxxing clueless.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I didn't say anything about buildings either and I don't know of anyone who questions the buildings collapsed.  You're so desperate you're now making sooper stoopid statements.



did you come up with an explanation on how an engine was planted or are you just going to continue to ramble on off topic??


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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





From what I've seen NIST has not adequately explained the collapses and I believe the new WTC7 was COMPLETED 2 years before the official report came out on how the old one came down.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say anything about buildings either and I don't know of anyone who questions the buildings collapsed.  You're so desperate you're now making sooper stoopid statements.
> ...




Why are you asking me to explain something I've never claimed?  Oh thass right.....it's because you don't like the fact many family members and first responders demand a new investigation.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Wow......the Jersey Girls do not believe NIST explained the collapse of the Towers and support AE for 9/11 Truth:
> 
> "In this case, it was of utmost importance to determine what actually caused the collapses to ensure the future safety of high-rise buildings. Since the government failed to do that, we applaud Mr. Richard Gage and the many other professionals who are spending their own time attempting to seek the truth.
> 
> ...


they arent part of NYCAN are they

and they, like Dr Q, dont say it was an inside job, but they dont trust the NIST results

and since you clearly dont know a fucking thing, you should really stop before you make yourself look like an even bigger dumbass than you already have
if thats even possible


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Wow......the Jersey Girls do not believe NIST explained the collapse of the Towers and support AE for 9/11 Truth:
> ...




I didn't say they did say it was an inside job.  Hell, I've never even made that claim you dumfuk.  But they.....


"...and leading 9/11 family advocates including Jersey Girls Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza as well as Bill Doyle, Monica Gabrielle and others."
The Turning Point

The fact is they demand a whole new investigation.  Period.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


READ THE FUCKING PETITION dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




I have read it....that's why I'm the one educating you.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


no you havent
because i DID
and it doesnt support you in any way shape or form


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



nist said fires alone...that structural damage was not significant in the collapse


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say anything about buildings either and I don't know of anyone who questions the buildings collapsed.  You're so desperate you're now making sooper stoopid statements.
> ...



you men the photo of some piece of rusty metal in a hole somewhere
you were told was an engine ?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



I'm the one quoting directly from their site with the links while you do nothing but lie and whine.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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



Even the courtroom exhibit doesn't say it's an engine and they carefully word it to avoid claiming it is from flight 93.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


and i went to the links you posted
you LIE
you take selected quotes and twist them


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Even your OCTA pals aren't buying your bullshit.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


no one has to BUY anything, because it isnt bullshit
what YOU spew is

and i'm not your OCTA, fucktard, and i dont have any "PALS"


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




The fact is they demand a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions and all your whining does not change that at all.  

Ignore all this again:

"The validity of the Commissions findings was further undermined by several factors, including contradictory accounts from the Federal Aviation Administration and the military, stonewalling from the Bush Administration, conflicts of interest among key personnel in the Commission, and the Commissions failure to hold a single individual accountable for the numerous failures leading up to, on and after September 11."


"With the federal government failing to deliver an impartial investigation, the 9/11 Families, First Responders and residents of New York City are moving ahead with the conviction that NYC CAN."
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now





"This momentous step forward in the quest for truth about September 11th will be looked upon with admiration across the globe."
Silencing of NYC Voters Will Not Go Unchallenged






"We know we never have learned the truth, it's as simple as that,'' says Lorie Van Auken

"It's a murder -- my son was murdered -- and there never has been a murder investigation and a finding of what happened,'' says McIlvaine, 
9/11 survivors call for renewed probe as 8th anniversary approaches | Bob Braun - NJ.com


"At this critical moment in the pursuit of truth about 9/11, we ask you to join us as we MARCH FOR ANSWERS.* Now is the time to stand UP and stand WITH the 80,000 proud New Yorkers who have courageously said YES, we MUST investigate 9/11!"
An Open Letter to All Celebrities Who Want A  New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


and NONE of those say what YOU want them to


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



poor little retarded dwivcon could you elaborate ?...no of course you cant


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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


yes, i can, but it would be over your head


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



no you are incapable and this is your excuse...lol


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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


wrong again

he wants those quotes to say they support what he does and they don't
but you still wont understand that


but for you to get it i have to throw in a few extra "w's"


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




You're an easy bitch to train.  I said t ignore them and you obeyed.  Now respond with more deflection....


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




I'm in full agreement with their agenda of opening a subpoena powered new investigation from zero assumptions.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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




He does nothing but whine and troll. (and he's so predictable he will quote this say "irony" while ignoring the fact he has yet to address a single fact posted.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


i have so addressed them
but just because they are quotes do not make them also facts
you and Id-Eots are fucking dipshits


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


i ignored nothing, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Your obedience is awesome!  Now deflect and whine....


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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



got proof it is rusty?

didnt think so. another twoofer pulling a stupid claim out of his ass.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Why are you asking me to explain something I've never claimed?



because thats the topic of this thread, you fucking moron.


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

what motivates this moron anyways ?..he wont debate..he refuses to support his postion and just claims he has or its pointless you would not understand..he post endlessly
replies like...

_you LIE
it doesnt say that
dipshit_

over and over and over and the only purpose he serves is to keep 9/11 forums active and 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb_Iult5k38]YouTube - All work and no play...[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


> what motivates this morn anyways..he wont debate..he refuses to support his postion and just claims he has or its pointless you would not understand..he post endlessly
> replies like...
> 
> _you LIE
> ...


what a dipshit


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what motivates this morn anyways..he wont debate..he refuses to support his postion and just claims he has or its pointless you would not understand..he post endlessly
> ...



seek professional help
before its
too late


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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


^^^^see!!!!
classic case of TPP


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



^^^see more meaningless ,unimaginative, pointless post..so now put some arrows and type tpp..again...all work and no play...


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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


its all dipshits like YOU deserve

btw, dipshit
how imaginable is it to copy and paste others peoples words, like YOU do
at least what i say are MY words
dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you asking me to explain something I've never claimed?
> ...




Why is it your concern for thread topics only happens when you've been pwned?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Really?  You invented the words "dipshit, liar, irony", etc?  If not they are not your words.  Now be a good obedient bitch and do nothing but whine in response.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




You can't show evidence what part it is or where it came from but you demand a link about rust.  You are saturated hypocrisy.


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



oh I post many of my own opinions and words and if there was a word count mine would greatly out number yours furthermore mine are backed up with the_ links_ that you like to call _other peoples words_.. btw I believe the _word _you were so desperately searching for is imaginative not imaginable


----------



## Fizz (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



it was in the BIG FUCKING HOLE CAUSED BY THE AIRPLANE CRASH you moron 

face it... the rust statement was completely made up. there is NOTHING to back that up.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


i dont whine, thats what dipshits like YOU do

LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 5, 2010)

eots said:


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


again, dipshit, thats all i give YOU morons


----------



## eots (Apr 6, 2010)

its all you got
if not PROVE IT
dipshit

lol


----------



## stannrodd (Apr 6, 2010)

One could also easily be told, that the aircraft part was being placed by the "digger" .. rather than being exposed or lifted out by the digger .. to bury something ..

It's a bit like walking into a ball game backwards ..

.. and saying to security that you are leaving .. 

which one is it .. 

Faith versus forensics

Stann


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

stannrodd said:


> One could also easily be told, that the aircraft part was being placed by the "digger" .. rather than being exposed or lifted out by the digger .. to bury something ..
> 
> It's a bit like walking into a ball game backwards ..
> 
> ...




Not a reasonable speculation because there would be many many people on site at the time.   The op claims it is an engine with absolutely no evidence of what part it is or what it belonged to.  The interesting aspect I see in the pic is an absence of scorch marks.  A commercial jet engine that just went through a huge explosion should have some type of visible burn tattoo but that part is very consistent in color.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




You're just a dishonest whiny shitbag.  Period.  I posted the evidence of many family members demanding a new investigation to get justice for 9/11 and seeking an explanation for how the towers came down and you absolutely ignored all of it.  Go ahead bitch, keep ignoring the evidence and respond with nothing but name calling.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Ok. 

Do you believe the towers came down because of structural failure due to fires, be it the columns failing or the floor trusses, or do you think it was something else that was the cause?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




You were asked several pages ago to produce evidence it was an engine from 93 and you did nothing but scurry away like a little mouse.  You were also asked to produce evidence 95% of the plane was recovered and you ran like a little bitch.  I fully agree it was wrong for eots to claim it is a rusty part.  Maybe one day you can learn how to be honest.

The other fascinating part by the FBI is they concluded no explosives were used.  They stated this in less than 13 days.  Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to believe they were able to run the lab tests in less than two weeks to verify no explosives were used?  You probably don't care because if the fbi says what you want to hear then it is Divine Golden Gospel in your cobweb mind.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.



Really? Just asking questions? 

Can you please tell me why then you refer to us as OCTAs? Doesn't OCTA mean Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist? If you never accused the government doing 9E, why do you consider it an "Official Conspiracy Theory"?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

eots said:


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



eots, I am not referring to the falling debris as structural damage. Read my post again. The fires CAUSED structural instability/failure.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.
> ...




It's the Official explanation for 9E.  The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes.  To this day it is still a claim, thus a theory about all that happened because it has never been proven.  You may not like the questions, and most OCTAs absofuxxinglootly hate facing the fact that you cannot answer those questions, but that doesn't change anything.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



I love the added word "carefully" in your statement as if you were there when they created the exhibit and they did it intentionally. Every hint of "conspiracy" or "doubt" you can cast on this subject you try and do.

They don't have to put descriptions in the actual photo. I work directly with people who prepare trial exhibits for a living and they don't always put descriptions in their actual pictures. Many times the descriptions of the exhibit are in an another document that accompanies the exhibits.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I've never accused the government of doing 9E and have only asked questions.
> ...



During the marathon debate about "airplane mode" on a cell phone, he has been totally accusatory.  

Additionally, he has accused the phone calls from the planes of being faked even if he didn't say so in so many words.  

All in all, he's the yellow stripe down the middle of the road; cowardice personified.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Do you believe the towers came down because of structural failure due to fires, be it the columns failing or the floor trusses, or do you think it was something else that was the cause?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes.



Ok.

What proof do you need to see that the 19 terrorists did it? What are you looking for? What would convince you?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


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




Great example of how OCTAs respond to facts they don't like.  Instead of addressing the indisputable fact there is no objective evidence showing calls from 77 were made you try to deflect by calling someone a coward.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory.  Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down.  That is a contradiction.  If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?

It also doesn't make sense that as we approach the first decade milestone a scientific consensus cannot be reached.  It took 7 years for the final report on WTC 7.  Seems the best way to solve the problem is give 4 or 5 international engineering groups all of the info and let them independently produce conclusions that would all be revealed at the same time.  From what I remember, after NIST's first attempt to conclude an explanation they quickly revamped when it was made public because peer reviews showed too many problems.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The claim is everything happened as a result of 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes.
> ...




A new investigation with independently verified forensic evidence.   May sound too vague but that is what needs to happen. Ie. The dna matching for the towers was outsourced to private companies but the dna matching for the pentagon was strictly under FBI control and even though they could have used dna to verify the hijacker's remains they chose not to.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The interesting aspect I see in the pic is an absence of scorch marks.  A commercial jet engine that just went through a huge explosion should have some type of visible burn tattoo but that part is very consistent in color.



source please.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory.  Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down.  That is a contradiction.  If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?



if it doesnt make sense then let's see your research. how much energy is released when a several ton airplane crashes into a building at several hundred miles an hour and how much explosives would be needed to create the same amount of energy?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory.  Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down.  That is a contradiction.  If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?
> ...





Common sense isn't too common after all.  You claim the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down.  If the planes themselves were sufficient then you can't simultaneously claim if explosives were used there had to be a ton of them. (meaning a lot of explosives)


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



so let me get this straight. you claim that you only need a little bit of explosives to bring the towers down after the airplane hit.

so how do you get the explosive into the exact point where the airplane already hit and weakened the building? how do you determine what structural areas still need to be removed?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > *I think we will eventually see a new investigation into the investigation. In other words, there are enough discrepencies in the 911 commission report as well as the NIST report that it is my opinion that at some point in the future the methods and information used to compile those reports will be investigated.*
> ...



Curvey, learn to fucking read little guy. See the part I made bold? How is that ignoring those that want a new investigation?
This exchange is a perfect example of why one can not hold an intelligent discussion with morons.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



No. That. Is. Not. What. I. Am. Claiming.

One more time.  Your position is the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down.  You cannot then claim explosives could not have been used on the premise it would require too many people and materials to do it quietly.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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



(divecon should pay close attention too)

You are claiming they want an investigation into the 9E Commission's Report.  That is not what they want.  I've posted it so many fuxxing times I'm not doing it again. They want a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions.  Iow, their investigation would proceed as if the 9E CR never happened.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Yeah, well I don't think that will happen. What I do think will happen is an investigation into the report. I just don't think there is or will be enough support for anything else.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 6, 2010)

Curvey, I should add that if the investigation into the report leads to more questions than answers, then maybe a whole new investigation into the events would happen.
That is the only way I see it happening for political, financial and public opinion reasons.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 6, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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



I disagree. What morons like curvie want was a trial with apparently the entire Executie branch as defendant and a charge of guilty on all 4,000 civilians and a great deal of the military commanders.  

The Commission's charge was to investigate what happened.  They did.  They did a job, that was in my estimation, flawless on the major points.  That view of mine, by the way, is emphasized every moment that someone like fry-chief says that there were errors but continues to point out none of them.  

There will be no re-investigation into the events or the Commission.  It is un-warranted and un-necessary.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



yes i can. anyone planting explosives would have no way of knowing exactly which structural elements the plane would take out and which would remain. therefore they would all need to be wired with explosives.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory.  Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down.  That is a contradiction.



No they don't say planes themselves brought the towers down. They say the planes caused damage along with fires which weakened the structural steel to point of failure. 



CurveLight said:


> If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?



Let's go through this step by step. Do you understand (and I'm not being a smart-ass by asking you this) how weights and stresses are distributed throughout a structural steel assembly of a building? Do you understand how the tube in tube design of the twin towers worked and how the weights and stresses were distributed throughout?

HowStuffWorks "The World Trade Center Tube"

The steel structure shared in the distribution of weight and stress. The planes that smashed into the towers took out how many perimeter columns upon impact? The weight that those perimeter columns supported cannot be completely ignored. The weight that they supported HAS to be taken up by the other parts of the structure. Now add in possible damage to the internal columns of the core from the impact. Then you start to WEAKEN the steel due to fire meaning it starts to lose it ability to support weight and or handle stresses. When those certain beams/columns/connections start to weaken, which supports then take up the weight from those weakening beam/columns/connections?

Let's say I have 1000lb square cement slab with 10 people holding it up. Those 10 people share the weight of the slab. If I have one person walk away, now it's 9 people to hold up the 1000lbs. How many people would need to be removed before the weight is too much for the remaining folks to hold up, thus causing their muscles to fail and bring the slab down to the ground or topple to the side with the least amount of people?

If you take away some of the perimeter columns and then a couple of the internal core columns, then weaken the rest (columns,trusses,connections) by 50% of their strength, what do you think would happen?

As far as your "how much explosives" question, it depends on what you're talking about. Thermite or actual explosives?

Why is it so hard to understand or except that plane impacts and fire can cause this to happen? Even Dr. Q thinks it was fire and structural failure that brought the towers down. He believes the floor trusses are what failed instead of the columns.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



What evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible explanation?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




As I said already, there is nothing conclusive for any explanation.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




You still don't get it.  If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.

As to your theory about how would they know where the planes would hit and where they wouldn't........I think it's safe to say anything at 35 floors and below would be out of a plausible direct impact from the planes.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




None of this subtracts from the fact you made a false claim.  Or are you willing to email NYCCAN and tell them directly they are "severely brain damaged lunatics" for demanding a new investigation?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



I didn't ask you to choose an explanation. I asked you what evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible possibility?


----------



## Terral (Apr 6, 2010)

Hi Gam and Curve:



Gamolon said:


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



The 420 guy acknowledges that the single chunk of rusty engine was 'planted' by somebody, but he simply wants to know 'how.' Nobody here can produce a single picture of the crashed 100-ton Jetliner, but you waste time making 330+ posts about nothing. Flight 93 DID NOT Crash In The Empty Shanksville Field (my Topic). Just head over to my Topic and start debunking ... if you can. God knows none of you can accept *my Challenge* (Make My Day) and start your own *Flight 93 Crashed In Shanksville* Topic cuckoo. 

The downside of 'knowing' the 911Truth is realizing that you are surrounded by *Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES* and *DoD Official Cover Story Stooges* (How To Spot) ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You still don't get it.  If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.



IT WASN'T THE PLANES ALONE.

Whether you want to believe it or not, weakening steel to a point of failure due to fire/heat has the same result as severing a column with explosives or thermite. The fire/heat scenario just takes longer. The heat weakens the steel to a point where the weight/stresses are greater than the steel's ability to support/resist it, thus it fails. Not to mention the fact that the actual impact of the planes REMOVED some of the perimeter columns and possibly some of the core columns altogether. After the impact, the other columns/supports/connections have to pick up the weight that is no longer supported by the removed columns. Now add in fires that weakened the columns/trusses/connections. It all adds up to structural failure.

After this argument, people want to bring up the fact that no other steel skyscaper has ever collapsed due to fire. Ok, you want to make that comparison, then we have to compare apples to apples. Show me another skyscraper of 100 floors, using a tube in tube design that the towers used, and that was struck by a plane. If you can find one that had these characteristics and stood after, then we have an argument.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




The immediate suppression of eyewitness testimonies, precise manner of expediting materials of the collapses out of america, the lack of testing (how did NIST/FBI know if terrorists didn't combine explosives with the hijackings?) for explosives, the long struggle (seven years and several agencies for wtc 7 alone) to conclusively establish how all three buildings collapsed, the refusal of allowing independent verification of NIST's claims, and the peer reviews by experts such as Dr. Q of stating NIST has failed to prove how the collapses occurred, and the manner in how all the buildings came down. (Plus my magic 8 Ball and the new toy I found in cocoa pebbles.
)  a few years ago I had wondered if the towers had been designed in some way to come straight down in the off chance of some type of event.  Placing two 110 story buildings in the middle of a metropolis without that consideration would seem irresponsible know how many other buildings and people would be killed by a horizontal collapse versus a vertical one.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You still don't get it.  If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.
> ...




The term "planes alone" means nothing else (ie explosives) was used to bring down the towers.  As for the design, could you link the exact blueprints of the towers?  If not, your argument focusing on the design is self defeating.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> [
> The term "planes alone" means nothing else (ie explosives) was used to bring down the towers.  As for the design, could you link the exact blueprints of the towers?  If not, your argument focusing on the design is self defeating.



you need the actual blueprints to know what the design of the building was?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



How does any of the above provide evidence that explosives were used??? For example. How can Dr. Q disagreeing with NIST's explanation as to how the towers collapsed provide be used as evidence that explosives are plausible?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The immediate suppression of eyewitness testimonies,


proof please


CurveLight said:


> precise manner of expediting materials of the collapses out of america


how is this evidence of explosives?



CurveLight said:


> the lack of testing (how did NIST/FBI know if terrorists didn't combine explosives with the hijackings?) for explosives,


prove there was no testing please.



CurveLight said:


> a few years ago I had wondered if the towers had been designed in some way to come straight down in the off chance of some type of event.  Placing two 110 story buildings in the middle of a metropolis without that consideration would seem irresponsible know how many other buildings and people would be killed by a horizontal collapse versus a vertical one.


the buildings would be designed to STAY UP in an "event"... not collapse down. that would be much safer dont you think?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



No, but NIST did. Mr. Robertson's firm was involved in the study done by them.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > a few years ago I had wondered if the towers had been designed in some way to come straight down in the off chance of some type of event.  Placing two 110 story buildings in the middle of a metropolis without that consideration would seem irresponsible know how many other buildings and people would be killed by a horizontal collapse versus a vertical one.
> ...



Great point. They were designed to withstand in impact of a plane lost in fog, not a plane intent on smashing into them for purpose of smashing into them. Why would you design a tower to collapse???


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




You asked what I see as evidence to the plausibility of explosives.  I gave examples.  You can agree or disagree.  Please understand these examples are indicative of a pattern and none in themselves are evidence.  You can't separate my reference of Dr Q and ignore the rest of it.  But his work is referenced mainly because he point blank argues NIST has not found definitive cause.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The immediate suppression of eyewitness testimonies,
> ...




You have yet to provide any actual evidence 95% of flight 93 being recovered.  You have not provided any evidence the op pic is of an engine from flight 93 but you demand others provide evidence?  I'll be nice and help educate you some more on one point but until you prove or retract your above claims all requests of evidence from you will be ignored.

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"

"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
Http://www.wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

That info has been public for about four years.  I'm guessing you will respond by parroting NIST's bullshit for why they didn't test but the fact remains I said they did not test for explosives and as proven, they did not.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




That is a double whammy on the fallacy of appeal to authority.  You are saying we should believe the government's claim its conclusion supports its premise on the basis the government has said so.  You are also ignoring experts, such as Dr. Q, disagrees with NIST's findings and that they have ignored Dr. Q's questions as well as refuse accountability by not letting other experts examine the same evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> That is a double whammy on the fallacy of appeal to authority.  You are saying we should believe the government's claim its conclusion supports its premise on the basis the government has said so.  You are also ignoring experts, such as Dr. Q, disagrees with NIST's findings and that they have ignored Dr. Q's questions as well as refuse accountability by not letting other experts examine the same evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.



the double whammy would be that you have no evidence... none at all... that the experts at the NIST are not correct and no evidence there is a huge government conspiracy.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > That is a double whammy on the fallacy of appeal to authority.  You are saying we should believe the government's claim its conclusion supports its premise on the basis the government has said so.  You are also ignoring experts, such as Dr. Q, disagrees with NIST's findings and that they have ignored Dr. Q's questions as well as refuse accountability by not letting other experts examine the same evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.
> ...




You can hardly claim notable experts calling for a new investigation and pointing out NIST failed "no evidence."   This is why it is almost pointless to debate the issue with you.  I've never claimed some huge government conspiracy but you want to derail by going cuckoo on ad homs.


----------



## eots (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > That is a double whammy on the fallacy of appeal to authority.  You are saying we should believe the government's claim its conclusion supports its premise on the basis the government has said so.  You are also ignoring experts, such as Dr. Q, disagrees with NIST's findings and that they have ignored Dr. Q's questions as well as refuse accountability by not letting other experts examine the same evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.
> ...



thats why a proper investigation is required there is no proof NIST findings are correct and  there is evidence and very credible testimony that suggest they are not


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

eots said:


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





I bet if we started a rumor that obushama had a role in NIST's Report we would suddenly see a lot of hands screaming for a new investigation.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


ROFLMAO
do that and you lose a bunch of the libs that worship the ground he walks on and only supported you because it was anti-bush


----------



## Tom Clancy (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



I Officially nominate this post for the most Idiotic Post of the Year.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 6, 2010)

420ish said:


> If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Probably the same team that planted dinosaur bones in the earth to fool the scientists.
Or who shot scenes of the moon on Hollywood sets to get NASA more funding.

J/K 
My serious respects and prayers to the families of Flight 93, whose losses and legacy are real, regardless of personal beliefs or disbeliefs in the causes of the 9/11 tragedies. May more of the focus always be on positive prevention and outreach, and not on political division which fuels the very anger that went into the original and subsequent "attacks."

Love and peace to all concerned about 9/11, its causes as well as its effects on all of us.
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
http://www.houstonprogressive.org


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You asked what I see as evidence to the plausibility of explosives.  I gave examples.  You can agree or disagree.  Please understand these examples are indicative of a pattern and none in themselves are evidence.  You can't separate my reference of Dr Q and ignore the rest of it.  But his work is referenced mainly because he point blank argues NIST has not found definitive cause.



Dear Curvelight, I will backtrack and start here where you entertain the possibility of using both planes and explosives. Can you please explain how the planes were so carefully synchronized to hit at the exact PLACE and TIME as the explosives going off? We can't even get Republicans and Democrats on the same page at the same time. How could these planes and explosives be so perfectly synchronized, or was the footage altered too?

True, that anything is possible unless proven otherwise. That plane engine could well be an altered or imported image from anywhere. But the hole left in the families' hearts for their loved ones is real and undeniable. Even if we disagree on the facts, the need for forgiveness and healing is universal, and that part we can all contribute to. Or we can continue to pour more jet fuel on the fire, which doesn't help pay the health care bills for thousands of emergency responders still suffering or dying from ill effects after 9/11.

At what point is the expense of digging into the details no longer worth it, and those resources could better be invested helping people affected by 9/11 regardless of blame.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

emilynghiem said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?
> ...




The only way to prevent it in the future is to ask the questions you're advocating we ignore.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...



I don't advocate to ignore or deny, but to explore in a cooperative environment of "forgiveness" "healing" and "correction" instead of projecting blame back and forth. I believe it is healthy to question and research in a constructive manner, but not to go to such extremes that it creates an equal and opposite resistance that wastes resources.

In the spirit of forgiveness, I believe truth can be uncovered and agreed upon which sets us all free. Not by denial or ignorance, but mutual acceptance of equal responsibility.

Please continue. I posted a question for you that I would like to hear your answer on, in this spirit of seeking correction and full accountability as I believe is your intent to pursue.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

emilynghiem said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You asked what I see as evidence to the plausibility of explosives.  I gave examples.  You can agree or disagree.  Please understand these examples are indicative of a pattern and none in themselves are evidence.  You can't separate my reference of Dr Q and ignore the rest of it.  But his work is referenced mainly because he point blank argues NIST has not found definitive cause.
> ...




I never claimed the planes would have to in sync with explosives.  I don't even know where you come up with that.  I've also never claimed explosives were used.  Please read back through my posts so you don't ask me questions about claims I have not made.


----------



## eots (Apr 6, 2010)

emilynghiem said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You asked what I see as evidence to the plausibility of explosives.  I gave examples.  You can agree or disagree.  Please understand these examples are indicative of a pattern and none in themselves are evidence.  You can't separate my reference of Dr Q and ignore the rest of it.  But his work is referenced mainly because he point blank argues NIST has not found definitive cause.
> ...



the biggest and most vocal of supporters for first responders is_ we are change a 9/11 truth group_

and regardless of how many years it takes justice must be served you dont abandon a mass murder investigation


----------



## eots (Apr 6, 2010)

emilynghiem said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?
> ...



you really should inform yourself because you clearly have not


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

in the past 9 years with thousands of people scouring millions of photopgraphs and studying thousands of hours of video frame by frame plus any other evidence has anyone come up with anything proving that the official version of events is not correct?

people asking for a new investigation isnt evidence that the official version is incorrect.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> in the past 9 years with thousands of people scouring millions of photopgraphs and studying thousands of hours of video frame by frame plus any other evidence has anyone come up with anything proving that the official version of events is not correct?
> 
> people asking for a new investigation isnt evidence that the official version is incorrect.




The OCT has never been proven true.  

You are claiming it must be true because the government says so.

The work of the past nine years has not been done in vain and we are now aware of a lot of information we would otherwise be totally ignorant of.

You keep asking to prove the OCT incorrect without admitting it has never been proven as fact.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > in the past 9 years with thousands of people scouring millions of photopgraphs and studying thousands of hours of video frame by frame plus any other evidence has anyone come up with anything proving that the official version of events is not correct?
> ...



fuck you. who the fuck are you to tell me what i claim?

my claim is that ALL the evidence points to the official version being true.

my claim is that NONE of the evidence points to it not being true.


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



thats your _claim..._but its an incorrect one


----------



## candycorn (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



Evidence will point in one direction and it points in the direction that 19 guys hijacked four planes.  

If it doesn't point in that direction, it can only point into another single direction....not 50 as to where there is a black ops dream team planting shit all over the place


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


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




I'm your reality check.  I'm the one that is constantly educating you about 9E.  I'm the one pointing out you claim 95% of flight 93 was recovered on the sole basis the FBI said so yet you don't have a fuxxing drop of evidence to support that claim.  I'm the one explaining to you your position is based on what the government says and not what evidence the government has produced.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I'm your reality check.  I'm the one that is constantly educating you about 9E.  I'm the one pointing out you claim 95% of flight 93 was recovered on the sole basis the FBI said so yet you don't have a fuxxing drop of evidence to support that claim.  I'm the one explaining to you your position is based on what the government says and not what evidence the government has produced.



see, this is where all you fucking twoofers become paranoid lunatics. you just assume that if the government gives information it must be a lie and some part of some wild conspiracy. 

the government says 95% of the plane was recovered. that IS evidence no matter how much you try to deny it. do you have any evidence that the government claim is incorrect?

i didnt think so. its just more paranoid delusional bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I'm your reality check.  I'm the one that is constantly educating you about 9E.  I'm the one pointing out you claim 95% of flight 93 was recovered on the sole basis the FBI said so yet you don't have a fuxxing drop of evidence to support that claim.  I'm the one explaining to you your position is based on what the government says and not what evidence the government has produced.
> ...




This is where you build strawmen and lack basic thinking skills.  Asking for evidence is not an accusation of lying.  It. Is. Simply. Asking. For. Evidence.


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



No I am not going to do that, but I9 will state again that YOU are a brain damaged RETARD, and treasonous to boot.
There is no reason to attempt to have a discussion with you as you are only here to insult and to argue, so expect the same in return asswipe.

Fuck you clownlite, you dishonest fuck!


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Stupid asswipe, you need to keep your mind on your work or your going to burn the fries, fish and pies.


dishonest moronic treasonous fuckwit


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




So when you are proven flat out wrong you throw a childish temper tantrum and accuse someone of lying even though the undeniable facts were posted.

"With the federal government failing to deliver an impartial investigation, the 9/11 Families, First Responders and residents of New York City are moving ahead with the conviction that NYC CAN."
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now





"This momentous step forward in the quest for truth about September 11th will be looked upon with admiration across the globe."
Silencing of NYC Voters Will Not Go Unchallenged






"We know we never have learned the truth, it's as simple as that,'' says Lorie Van Auken

"It's a murder -- my son was murdered -- and there never has been a murder investigation and a finding of what happened,'' says McIlvaine, 
9/11 survivors call for renewed probe as 8th anniversary approaches | Bob Braun - NJ.com


"At this critical moment in the pursuit of truth about 9/11, we ask you to join us as we MARCH FOR ANSWERS.* Now is the time to stand UP and stand WITH the 80,000 proud New Yorkers who have courageously said YES, we MUST investigate 9/11!"
An Open Letter to All Celebrities Who Want A  New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



You had a chance to have a discussion with me and blew it.
So all you deserve from me is ridicule, in fact that is all you deserve from any living human.


As usual the opposite of what the agent says is closer to the truth.

You chose to NOT recognize a violation of law which puts you on the side of treason as you attempt to bash verified truth which CAN protect the Constitution.

There are many people that would resent that, and they are learning about your kind.
What a piece of shit on a twinkie!


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



As usual the opposite of what the agent says is closer to the truth.

You chose to NOT recognize a violation of law which puts you on the side of treason as you attempt to bash verified truth which CAN protect the Constitution.

There are many people that would resent that, and they are learning about your kind.
what a piece of shit in a jelly roll!


clownlite;


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




"With the federal government failing to deliver an impartial investigation, the 9/11 Families, First Responders and residents of New York City are moving ahead with the conviction that NYC CAN."
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now





"This momentous step forward in the quest for truth about September 11th will be looked upon with admiration across the globe."
Silencing of NYC Voters Will Not Go Unchallenged






"We know we never have learned the truth, it's as simple as that,'' says Lorie Van Auken

"It's a murder -- my son was murdered -- and there never has been a murder investigation and a finding of what happened,'' says McIlvaine, 
9/11 survivors call for renewed probe as 8th anniversary approaches | Bob Braun - NJ.com


"At this critical moment in the pursuit of truth about 9/11, we ask you to join us as we MARCH FOR ANSWERS.* Now is the time to stand UP and stand WITH the 80,000 proud New Yorkers who have courageously said YES, we MUST investigate 9/11!"
An Open Letter to All Celebrities Who Want A  New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



As usual the opposite of what the agent says is closer to the truth.

You chose to NOT recognize a violation of law which puts you on the side of treason as you attempt to bash verified truth which CAN protect the Constitution.

There are many people that would resent that, and they are learning about your kind.



We should take up a collection at USMB to help the mentally disabled like clownlite here. If we could be assured he would not spend it on bubblegum and 911 truth videos, we probobly could collect enough to pay clownlites asylum bill for a couple months.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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



"With the federal government failing to deliver an impartial investigation, the 9/11 Families, First Responders and residents of New York City are moving ahead with the conviction that NYC CAN."
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now





"This momentous step forward in the quest for truth about September 11th will be looked upon with admiration across the globe."
Silencing of NYC Voters Will Not Go Unchallenged






"We know we never have learned the truth, it's as simple as that,'' says Lorie Van Auken

"It's a murder -- my son was murdered -- and there never has been a murder investigation and a finding of what happened,'' says McIlvaine, 
9/11 survivors call for renewed probe as 8th anniversary approaches | Bob Braun - NJ.com


"At this critical moment in the pursuit of truth about 9/11, we ask you to join us as we MARCH FOR ANSWERS.* Now is the time to stand UP and stand WITH the 80,000 proud New Yorkers who have courageously said YES, we MUST investigate 9/11!"
An Open Letter to All Celebrities Who Want A  New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



As usual the opposite of what the agent says is closer to the truth.

You chose to NOT recognize a violation of law which puts you on the side of treason as you attempt to bash verified truth which CAN protect the Constitution.

There are many people that would resent that, and they are learning about your kind.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




So this has nothing to do with 9E.  You're just a whiny bitch that continues to ignore the facts:

"With the federal government failing to deliver an impartial investigation, the 9/11 Families, First Responders and residents of New York City are moving ahead with the conviction that NYC CAN."
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now





"This momentous step forward in the quest for truth about September 11th will be looked upon with admiration across the globe."
Silencing of NYC Voters Will Not Go Unchallenged






"We know we never have learned the truth, it's as simple as that,'' says Lorie Van Auken

"It's a murder -- my son was murdered -- and there never has been a murder investigation and a finding of what happened,'' says McIlvaine, 
9/11 survivors call for renewed probe as 8th anniversary approaches | Bob Braun - NJ.com


"At this critical moment in the pursuit of truth about 9/11, we ask you to join us as we MARCH FOR ANSWERS.* Now is the time to stand UP and stand WITH the 80,000 proud New Yorkers who have courageously said YES, we MUST investigate 9/11!"
An Open Letter to All Celebrities Who Want A  New 9/11 Investigation


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



and you are just a hate-filled impotent little dickweed that doesn't have the basic skills required to have a discussion.
fuck you clown!
As usual the opposite of what the agent says is closer to the truth.

You chose to NOT recognize a violation of law which puts you on the side of treason as you attempt to bash verified truth which CAN protect the Constitution.

There are many people that would resent that, and they are learning about your kind.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



You have doubt about the structural design the towers used? I suggest you pick up a few books and read. There are articles about it. Photos that prove the articles correct.

I suggest you direct your questions about the tower's design to Mr. Robertson. He can set you straight. he has answered my emails concerning the towers.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



I'm not doubting the structural design.  I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support and you are claiming NIST is correct without verification and in the face of experts pointing out NIST's conclusions are bullshit.


----------



## Terral (Apr 7, 2010)

Hi Gam:



Gamolon said:


> You have doubt about the structural design the towers used? I suggest you pick up a few books and read. There are articles about it ...



And 'that' cuckoo is how the little rusty hunk of metal was 'planted' by the Inside-job Murdering Bushie Administration-empowered FBI, CIA, NSA and FEMA working under the auspices of Dickless Cheney and the Department of Defense (What Really Happened) ...

Just ignore the Topic and keep on running your idiot mouths confused about nothing ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Fizz (Apr 7, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you are claiming the engine was planted by picking up books and reading?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Gam:
> ...




That's light years ahead of the fact you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



like this? 
CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


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





Why repeat this shit?  Is your standard of evidence the same for everything?  If a government agency announces something that means it's true?

You have no actual evidence or you would have posted it.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



I wonder if Curveslight believes Africa really exists.  I mean, the only evidence we really have of it being there is satellite imagery and maps made from those satellites.  We all know that NASA--A GOVERNMENT AGENCY launches those satellites so, obviously, they must be lying about it being there.  I've always doubted the existence of Antarctica.  

Please wake me up if he ever says anything definative (sp?).


----------



## Fizz (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



that is actual evidence. you continue to pretend it doesnt exist and claim there is no evidence.

do you have ANY evidence that the news article is incorrect?

is your standard for evidence if a government agency makes a claim it is automatically FALSE?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

candycorn said:


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




NASA is the only way to verify Africa exists?

You should stick to posting nothing but ad homs.  At least then you have a chance at hiding your stoopidity.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



On top of:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2183800-post367.html


What do you think lying will accomplish?  I've addressed your link several times and have never pretended it doesn't exist.  You want another chance to show everyone you will ignore basic logic?  Your link is the fallacy of appeal to authority.  Ignore that again.

But I will keep in mind by your standards if a government agency simply says something that means in your book it is true and you don't need any verification.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> [
> What do you think lying will accomplish?  I've addressed your link several times and have never pretended it doesn't exist.  You want another chance to show everyone you will ignore basic logic?  Your link is the fallacy of appeal to authority.  Ignore that again.
> 
> But I will keep in mind by your standards if a government agency simply says something that means in your book it is true and you don't need any verification.



do you have any fucking idea what you are talking about? the fallacy of "appeal to authority" is when an the authority is not in expert in what is being discussed. obviously this is not the case with the FBI that was assisted by the NTSB.

now if a DNA expert was claiming that 95% of the plane was recovered you might have a point.

but you dont. you are just talking out of your ass again.

so once again i ask you. where is your evidence that the 95% recovered claim is not correct?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 7, 2010)

Fizz said:


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


he always talks out of his ass


----------



## eots (Apr 8, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3PAW7zjgPw]YouTube - FBI Agent Explains How To Spot Liars[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Mike Walter[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Apr 8, 2010)

feel free to randomly post videos irrelevant to the topic of the thread whenever you want...


----------



## eots (Apr 8, 2010)

Thats ok you do enough of that for everyone


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 8, 2010)

eots said:


> Thats ok you do enough of that for everyone


no, only dipshits like YOU do that


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



If you are not doubting the design, then why did you ask me to post the link to the blueprints?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Fizz said:


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





"Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true."

"But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal to Authority Overview and Introduction

Furthermore, the FBI are not the experts in aircraft recovery.  That is what the NTSB does.

You have not provided any evidence but you want others to prove a negative while you have never proven in the affirmative.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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





To prove you were making claims you could not support.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I'm not doubting the structural design.  I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support...



Exactly what claim am I making about the structural design? Please tell me.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



What claims?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



http://www.usmessageboard.com/2181050-post336.html


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Below is the actual posts that you linked to above.



Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You still don't get it.  If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.
> ...



Now please. Tell me what part of my above post needs to have the WTC tower blueprints provided in order to prove said claim correct?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



You misunderstand.

I said that CTers try to make the argument that fires could not have caused the collapse of the Twin Towers because nowhere in history has a skyscraper constructed of steel, ever collapsed due to fire alone.

I am saying that if they want to make that comparison, then they need to find a skyscraper that was constructed like the Twin Towers (using a tube in tube design), the same height, width, length, and was hit by a plane in the upper third.

If they can find a skyscraper that matches that criteria and still stood after, then they have an argument.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



I agree with you that is a bad argument and it probably got steam by the dumfuks who did loosechange but at the same time you are giving that argument credibility by looking for a comparison.  It's a red herring no matter how it gets served.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



You're not making sense. This is your first statement:


CurveLight said:


> I'm not doubting the structural design.  I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support ...



In the quote above, you specifically said "I made a claim about the structural design I cannot support..." I asked you "What claim am I making about the structural design?", to which you reply:


CurveLight said:


> You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.



How is that "Making a claim about the structural design of the towers"? 



CurveLight said:


> You are demanding a comparison of skyscrapers without verifying the blueprints to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.


And yes, I am asking for a comparison of the towers. When a CTer says that "No steel skyscraper in history has ever collapsed form fire alone", you damn right I'm going to ask them to provide a tower with the same characteristics that actually stood after a fire. You mean to tell me that it's ok to make that statement as proof that the Twin Tower's collapse didn't happen as NIST describes? Show me a skyscraper that had similar characteristics to the Twin Tower's collapse and still stood after.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



How so? I'm showing how dumb of of an argument it is. CTers want to say that history proves the towers collapse couldn't have been from fires because it has never happened to a skyscraper before. Again, they say that "Before 9/11, no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire alone."

First problem with that statement. It wasn't fire alone. I don't understand why people say "fire alone" when talking of the Twin Towers. Planes smashed into them effectively removing part of the perimeter columns, which helped distribute weight and stresses. 

Second problem with that statement. Design has quite a bit to do with how things react to outside forces. All buildings are not created equal so why would you make a comparison to skyscrapers of unlike design and make comparisons to skyscrapers that didn't have the same scenarios happen to them? That's why I always ask for whomever makes that statement to show me a skyscraper with the following characteristics:

1. Similar in height, width, and length to the Twin Towers
2. Similar design (tube in tube)
3. Had a jet smash into them at the upper third
4. Had ensuing fires from crash

Show me that skyscraper with those characteristics that was still standing and then we have a debate. Until that happens, the above argument is moot.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

Another thing Curve.

NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.

What they differ on is what part of the structure failed. NIST says columns buckled. Dr. Q says that the floor trusses failed.

The reason Dr. Q wants all this re-investigated is because he wants to make sure that the correct fault of the structural failure is exposed so they can learn from it which is why, in his paper, his conclusion states:

"The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
*respect to recommendations and remedial action*."

and

"I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to *reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues*."

Are you in agreement with him? Do you want another investigation of the Twin Towers opened so you can be assured that the correct structural failure was identified (buckling columns or failed floor trusses BOTH of which were caused by fire and heat as stated by NIST and Dr.Q) so that we get the recommendations for fire safety and design correct?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




So apply this to WTC 7.  NIST said fire along brought that skyscraper down.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Another thing Curve.
> 
> NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.
> 
> ...




We've been over this.  My point of referencing Dr. Q is his claim NIST failed to find "definitive cause."


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



NIST explained how it happened in detail within their report. Am I correct in saying that you don't agree with the explanation in the WTC7 report? If you don't agree with it, can you please point out one section they they got wrong?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing Curve.
> ...



Since you seem to put your faith in Dr. Q in that he knows what he is talking about, then you must agree with him that the Twin Towers collapsed due to floor trusses failing because of heat due to the fires.

Do you agree with Dr. Q's conclusion? You obviously do since you say he provides the information that shows NIST "FAILED to find a definitive cause" and provides his own alternative based on the evidence he used.


----------



## eots (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Another thing Curve.
> 
> NIST and Dr. Q come to the same conclusion. The Twin Towers collapse due to structural failure from fire/heat.
> 
> ...



this is  is *one example *he offers of an alternative scenario 

*I suggest that theres an equally justifiable theory and thats the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,*


and goes on to say...


 I would really like to see someone else take a look at what theyve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.

I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable, explained Dr. Quintiere. Let's look at real *alternatives *that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers


I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'


* also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], *which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and *get gumshoe-type information*
instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those *lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything. *

not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to *deter rather than develop fact finding. *

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


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing Curve.
> ...



Dr. Q also says this:



			
				Dr. Q said:
			
		

> Conspiracy theorists have dominated the web pages and received strong recognition in the media. Yet responsible criticism has been minimal.



He mentions CTers and then says "*Yet* responsible criticism has been minimal." I guess he considers CTer's fluff "irresponsible criticism"?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing Curve.
> ...



Ok. Show me the other example/s he has come forth with. Your statement above claims that there are more than one he has made.




eots said:


> and goes on to say...
> 
> 
> I would really like to see someone else take a look at what theyve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.
> ...



Ok? Both he and NIST say the towers collapsed from structural failure due to heat from fires and he has evidence that agrees with his theory that it was the floor trusses that failed due to heat from fires. What's your point?



eots said:


> I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'



Funny how you left out the rest of that quote:


			
				Dr.Q said:
			
		

> I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', *but in a proper way, he said.*



Why'd you leave that part out? What do you suppose he meant by that?


Sloppy work eots. Just sloppy.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing Curve.
> ...



Let's have at it eots. 

In the above statement, you say it's one example he offers. Please show me the "other" example/s he has used. That's like me saying that Nike is one brand of shoe that Foot Locker offers. So let's see these "other" theories he has.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Curve. The end conclusion from Dr.Q is that the towers collapsed due to the floor trusses failing from heat due to the fires. You agree with everything else he says. Both NIST and now Dr. Q both agree that heat from the fires caused SOME TYPE OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FAILURE.

Now what eots? Are you saying that you get to pick and choose what parts of Dr. Q's paper and which statements are true and which are not based on when it suits your argument?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

Dr. Q said:
			
		

> Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
> deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion.



An alternate conclusion. Just one. No more.

So eots, where are the other ones you seem to think he has?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing Curve.
> ...



Simple question for both eots and Curvelight.

Do you both agree with NIST and Dr. Q that the Twin Towers collapsed because of a structural failure caused by heat from fires?

Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

Terral said:


> Just ignore the Topic and keep on running your idiot mouths confused about nothing ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral



Awwwwww. What 's the matter Terral? Poor baby doesn't like being ignored? Need attention?

All I have to say is that I tried discussing things with you before, like your WTC7 topic, and you ran away with your tail between your legs and wouldn't answer any more questions about your claims. That was AFTER I handed your ass to you when I proved you were completely wrong about one of your photos containing thermite cuts. Is that why you don't post about WTC7 anymore? 


Then you admit to succumbing to the "over-hyped" H1N1 bullshit (just look at my sig).

The above, coupled with the fact that you make predictions that never come true, puts you in the category of "complete asshole". 

You aren't worth my time going forward as you are admittedly gullible and stupid.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




 ¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:

."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Now to your question.....when you answer mine I will answer yours.  You claim a skyscraper comparison is legit so what skyscrapers have you compared wtc 7 to?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



None. Can you point me to a skyscraper/building with a similar design to WTC7, that had fires on many floors caused by falling debris so I can make one? 

Furthermore, I said that CTers want to make historical comparisons to the Twin Towers saying that their collapses are impossible based on the fact that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fires alone.

That claim is bunk for the following reasons. There has never been a steel skyscraper designed like the Twin Towers that was struck by a jet and then caught fire. THAT'S why the claim is garbage. How can you make a comparison to something that never happened before?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> ¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:
> 
> ."Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
> Http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12



That's wrong. eots specifically says that Dr. Q had more than one theory. That quote above does not state one of these other theories. Where exactly is/are the "other" theory/ies that Dr. Q subscribes to?


----------



## eots (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Dr. Q said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



how can he properly formulate theories if he is .._blocked_.. if _..fact finding is deterred _.._question unanswered_ .._evidence withheld_  ..._request denied_ ?... why would he call for his peers to become... _conspiracy theorist _if he thought there were but _two probabilities_


----------



## eots (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



wtc 7 is claimed to have collapsed from fire with damage having no significance in the collapse other than imitating the fires


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 8, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > ¤quick sidebar.....you asked eots to show where Dr Q spoke of more than one alternate explanation and here it is:
> ...





That's wrong?  I quoted Dr. Q directly stating "real alternatives" but you still deny it.  Nice.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Q said:
> ...



Your statement previously indicates he has more than one theory. Please present it/them.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Is this the same as Dr. Q stating another theory he has in addition to his failing truss theory? No it is not. He has stated one theory and one theory only.

There is no way around this.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

Curve and eots.

You seem to have an issue in answering one question that I have presented a couple of times now.

I will ask it again.

Dr. Q, in his paper, has stated his conclusion that the Twin Towers collapsed from failing floor trusses due to heat from fires. 

Do you agree with him since he is an "expert" in this matter?

Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

eots said:


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



What's your point? I know how WTC7 is claimed to have collapsed.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Q said:
> ...



Why would he call his peers to become "conspiracy theorists, *but in the proper way*." That's the second time you left that part of his quote out. Why? Well, I shouldn't ask you why because I already know the answer.


Dr. Q also says this:



			
				Dr. Q said:
			
		

> Conspiracy theorists have dominated the web pages and received strong recognition in the media. Yet responsible criticism has been minimal.



He mentions CTers and then says "*Yet* responsible criticism has been minimal." I guess he considers CTer's fluff "irresponsible criticism"?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




It's silly for you to try and split hairs like this.  Dr. Q clearly demonstrates more than one possible alternative.  Why do you think he is calling for an independent investigation?  Why do you think he advocates healthy skepticism of NIST's conclusions?  If he was confident he had the correct theory he wouldn't ask others for their efforts in looking at real alternatives.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Curve and eots.
> 
> You seem to have an issue in answering one question that I have presented a couple of times now.
> 
> ...




You seem to have a real problem with the fact your question has been answered.  It looks like the only reason you keep asking is to hope for some type of inconsistency.  You can either silently admit I've stated my position on the towers as well as why I referenced dr q or continue with false accusations.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Who's splitting hairs? eots made statement that clearly indicates Dr. Q himself has theories other than the only one he states in his paper and elsewhere. The only one Dr. Q states is the failing truss theory. He states in his paper that the "EVIDENCE" has more support for this theory than the column failing theory NIST presents.

Please point me in the direction of where I can find his other stated theories that eots is referring to.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Curve and eots.
> ...



No you haven't.

Do you agree with Dr. Q's conclusion stated in his paper, based on the evidence he has seen, that the towers collapsed due to the floor trusses failing due to heat from the fires.

Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Curve and eots.
> ...



You are using Dr. Q's assessment of the evidence he has seen and his statements as proof that NIST is wrong in their conclusion of what happened. You have obviously read his paper. 

Since you are using his conclusion and statements and consider him an expert, then that means you agree with his conclusion that the towers collapsed due to the failing floor trusses caused by heat from fires.

So, do you agree with Dr. Q's conclusion in his paper or not? Either you do or don't. Why do you keep avoiding the question?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

What about you eots? 

Do you agree with your "expert", Dr. Q, that the towers collapsed due to the floor trusses failing form heat due to fires?

Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Q said:
> ...



So you're saying that his conclusion in his paper, where he clearly states that the evidence he has looked at, is more supportive of his theory that the floor trusses failed due to heat from the fires, is not properly formulated now?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



You still don't get it.  If dr. Q was sure his theory was correct he would not demand a new full independent investigation.  He would not encourage colleagues to become healthy conspiracy theorists and you once again ignored the fact he said they should look at real alternatives.  That's plural for alternative.   Meaning more than one.  Meaning more than his presented theory.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



What YOU don't understand is that in his paper, he spells out his theory as to what happened in the towers. Here is the excerpt:



			
				Dr. Q said:
			
		

> Conclusions
> I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
> their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
> then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
> ...



Do you agree with his assessment that the floor trusses failed because of the heat from fires thus causing the collapse or don't you?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



He seems pretty sure to me as he pointed out the fact that the evidence he looked at supports his theory.



CurveLight said:


> He would not encourage colleagues to become healthy conspiracy theorists



Explain this to me. What exactly is a "healthy conspiracy theorist"?



CurveLight said:


> and you once again ignored the fact he said they should look at real alternatives.


And you ignored the fact that eots says Dr. Q has other theories other than his truss theory. Please find those and point me to them.



CurveLight said:


> That's plural for alternative.   Meaning more than one.  Meaning more than his presented theory.


What's your point? Again, eots made a statement that Dr. Q HIMSELF has other theories. Where are they? Asking people to look for alternatives and saying that HE HIMSELF has other theories is quite different. Here is eots' quote:



eots said:


> this is  is *one example *he offers of an alternative scenario
> 
> *I suggest that theres an equally justifiable theory and thats the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,*



The above says that the truss theory is just one example he offers. WHAT OTHER THEORIES HAS HE OFFERED???? WTF??? Is it that hard to understand? Again, If I said that Nike is just one brand of shoe that Foot Locker offers, that statement implies that Foot Locker offers more than just Nike shoes.

It's not that difficult to understand.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



On the collapses:
"All three towers are a mystery"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2179866-post316.html


Why dr q was referenced:
But his work is referenced mainly because he point blank argues NIST has not found definitive cause.
Http://www.usmessageboard.com/2181342-post344.html


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



So. You DON'T agree with Dr. Q's conclusion even though he is an expert and has looked at the evidence because it is not conclusive?

Gotcha.


----------



## Douger (Apr 9, 2010)

I planted them to show that the Mossad and CIA, alCIA duh are the problem.
I need a chicken sammish..................


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




Patience Tank: Empty.

You're a fuxxing reetawrd to the divecon degree.  I didn't say I don't agree with him.  Exactly what part of:

"All three towers are a mystery."

is confusing to you?

What part of:

"I haven't seen any conclusive evidence for any theory."

is confusing?

I also haven't seen eots say dr q himself has more than one theory.  In this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2188639-post413.html

he pointed out dr q's theory is one example of an alternative then goes on to highlight how dr q clearly called on colleagues to also come up with "real alternatives."  And to repeat what you have ignored....if dr q was confident his theory is the correct one he would not demand a new investigation.  He would not recommend colleagues become healthy CTs.

I have more respect for divecon because he puts his insincerity on a silver platter whereas you feign sincerity and constantly put words in others' mouths.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 9, 2010)

once again bentdick proves what an impotent moron he is by refusing to form an opinion on anything.


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Wow.

You say that you haven't seen any conclusive evidence for ANY theory which means that you don't think his theory has any merit because in your eyes, THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT!!!!!!

What the hell don't you get? If I told you the moon was made of shit and you you said "You don't have any conclusive evidence to prove that!", what the fuck do you think you're telling me?


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I also haven't seen eots say dr q himself has more than one theory.  In this post:



Ok. What the fuck does this next QUOTED STATEMENT from eots mean???????


eots said:


> this is  is *one example *he offers of an alternative scenario


This means that Dr. Q has offered other theories right?

Jesus H. Christ!!!

I'm giving you an example of the same friggin' claim and you act like an imbecile.

If I said to you "Nike is just ONE EXAMPLE of the brand of shoes that Foot Locker offers.", what that fuck could I possibly mean by that? That there are OTHER BRANDS OF SHOES that Foot Locker offers right? 


What a fool!


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


and you prove you are a fucking id-eot


----------



## eots (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



why do you ingnore the fact he says evidence was witheld .. fact finding detered ..blocked...questions unanswered..and that there is no evidence of tempatures predicted nessesary for failure ? furthermore DR Q has no *conclusion*.. he offered an alternative *theory*


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 9, 2010)

eots said:


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


and he calls you morons "crazy"


----------



## eots (Apr 9, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



any evedence to support your LIE/DELUSIONS ?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 9, 2010)

eots said:


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


sorry, i dont understand the moronic question
but since you are delusional and lie a lot, you must be doing more of that TPP you are so well known for


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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




You repeat the pattern.  I never said it "has no merit."


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 9, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I also haven't seen eots say dr q himself has more than one theory.  In this post:
> ...




You don't know how to read.  Let me explain it.

"this is one example he offers of an alternative scenario"

Eots didn't say:

"this is an example OF ONE OF HIS ALTERNATVE theories.


And you are still ignoring the other points.  You're done.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

420ish said:


> If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?


Hint, you're starring at it.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> 420ish said:
> 
> 
> > If you think no plane crashed in Shanksville, then how did they plant this engine?
> ...


ah, so they took that photo in the process of it being planted


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > 420ish said:
> ...


Yep.  Pretty clever and ballsy on their part.  It went years until someone figured it out.  There's a good video about it on youtube somewhere.  Now looking at that photo, you can't help think how obvious it was.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



ahhhh... it must be true because there is a youtube video about it... 

so they planted evidence right in front of the hundreds of first responders there and nobody said anything? 

so where is the plane.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


in broad daylight and with the media of the world watching them



TFF


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> so they planted evidence right in front of the hundreds of first responders there and nobody said anything?


Go to youtube and search "shanksville engine" and you'll see the video -- I can't post any links because I haven't posted enough yet.  It shows how they did it without onlookers seeing it.  There was never many responders near the crater when they were digging it, only a few of the workers in the jumpsuits who were mostly FBI agents.



> so where is the plane.


Not down in the ground, that's for sure.  That was the biggest lie ever told about Shanksville.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > so they planted evidence right in front of the hundreds of first responders there and nobody said anything?
> ...


just what we need, yet another dipshit troofer


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> in broad daylight and with the media of the world watching them


You make it sound like the media was filming the dig.  I never saw any footage of that, did you?  There goes your theory.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > in broad daylight and with the media of the world watching them
> ...


and you know why?
cause they didnt do what you claim, dipshit
the media was there and taking photos DAILY
dont you think that if they were planting evidence SOMEONE would have got it?


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> and you know why?
> cause they didnt do what you claim, dipshit


What do you mean by that potty mouth?



> the media was there and taking photos DAILY
> dont you think that if they were planting evidence SOMEONE would have got it?


Show me one photo taken by the media of a closeup of any debris being dug out of the ground by that backhoe.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > in broad daylight and with the media of the world watching them
> ...



wait a second.... didnt you just claim there was a youtube video of it?!!  so how did they get a youtube video of it if there isnt any footage? 

let me guess. you are one of those idiots that thinks anyone that makes a a video and puts it on youtube must be right and the rest of the credible people in the world are all "in on it"?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and you know why?
> ...


this is a big dog forum
if you cant run with the big dogs, get back on the porch, puppy


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Thass funny coming from someone who lives off puppy chow.  (but only after it's been put in a blender with similac)


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> wait a second.... didnt you just claim there was a youtube video of it?!!  so how did they get a youtube video of it if there isnt any footage?


There's a video someone made that shows how the engine was plant by that backhoe without been seen by the rest of the people parked on the street.  I never said it was footage of the dig.  Pay attention next time so you don't look ignorant.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Show me one photo taken by the media of a closeup of any debris being dug out of the ground by that backhoe.



right after you show a close-up picture of the engine arriving at the crash site on the back of a truck getting ready to be planted as evidence.


fucking moron!!


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Making claims you can't back up.  I think you should have said...

this is a puppy dog forum
if you cant run with the puppies, get off the porch, big dog


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...


LOL
another delusional fucktard


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Show me one photo taken by the media of a closeup of any debris being dug out of the ground by that backhoe.
> ...


The only moron here is the one who thinks the FBI would plant an engine and also take and release to the public closeup photos them bringing in that engine that they are about to plant.

Talk about


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



holy fuck!!! talk about projection!!!

you want to back up your claim the engine was planted? how about something a little more solid than a youtube video.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



hahahahahaha!!!! so your proof that the engine was planted is that the FBI didnt release pictures of them planting the engine?!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaha!!!


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> you want to back up your claim the engine was planted? how about something a little more solid than a youtube video.


Let me guess, you haven't watched that video I told you to.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you want to back up your claim the engine was planted? how about something a little more solid than a youtube video.
> ...



this one?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6QlczksTQ]YouTube - Only 1 photo shows 'plane debris' coming out of Shanksville hole[/ame]

the one that falsely claims the plane hit a mine SHAFT instead of a strip mine?
the one that claims a 64 ton aircraft weighs 100 tons?
the one shows the plane crashing in the wrong direction?
the one that claims the engine was planted solely based on the basic fact that what is visible of the engine would have fit in the backhoe bucket next to it??

how many errors can you fit into one minute 48 seconds??

let me ask you a real basic question. do you think if they didnt think the backhoe would be able to handle the job of removing the engine they would have simply GOT A BIGGER BACKHOE?

so now matter how big the engine is there is going to be a bucket next to it that can handle the job. 

sorry to inject LOGIC into the conversation. go back to your fantasy land of secret government agents.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


This is the second time you didn't read what I said very well, but if you like to look ignorant, so be it.

The FBI did release one photo of them planting the engine, the one in the OP, just not any photos of them bringing the engine in by truck that they were about to plane, like you asked of.

Next time, READ.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



the picture of the engine is of them RECOVERING the engine. not planting it. dont get ahead of yourself there, waldo. first things first. the picture is from the moussoui (or however you spell that) trial. it was evidence admissible in a court of law that the wreckage was that of flight 93. you got any evidence that trumps that and proves it was planted?

i didnt think so.


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6QlczksTQ]YouTube - Only 1 photo shows 'plane debris' coming out of Shanksville hole[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - Only 1 photo shows 'plane debris' coming out of Shanksville hole


was already posted, dipshit


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > saiweril said:
> ...



You are a moron, there are dozens if not hundreds of pictures of the debris from flt 93. There was no way it could have been planted. Plus the DNA evidence was all there.

Who are you really?







http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp2.jpg


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> this one?


No, [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbcpM9dcPhk]this one[/ame], but thanks for that other one.  A 64 ton plane buried itself, but only one photo show any proof of something being dug out.  Classic.




> YouTube - Only 1 photo shows 'plane debris' coming out of Shanksville hole
> 
> the one that falsely claims the plane hit a mine SHAFT instead of a strip mine?


One of them said that, the other guy didn't.  Maybe he was mocking the official story.



> the one that claims a 64 ton aircraft weighs 100 tons?


I didn't hear a claim of the weight.  Where was that said?



> the one shows the plane crashing in the wrong direction?


Looked like the right direction to me.



> the one that claims the engine was planted solely based on the basic fact that what is visible of the engine would have fit in the backhoe bucket next to it??


All of that engine part was visible.  You can tell it's not submerged in ground.  Just laid down on top.  The other video is more detailed about that.



> how many errors can you fit into one minute 48 seconds??


Technically I saw only one and that's if the first guy wasn't mocking the official story. 



> let me ask you a real basic question. do you think if they didnt think the backhoe would be able to handle the job of removing the engine they would have simply GOT A BIGGER BACKHOE?


How would they know how big the plane part was until after they unearthed it?



> so now matter how big the engine is there is going to be a bucket next to it that can handle the job.


There only looked to be excavators with that same size backhoe.  Are you really suggesting if they started unearthing a part that was bigger than the backhoes on scene, they were going to stop everything and wait hours, maybe a day, until the brought in a excavator with a larger backhoe?  I don't see the logic in that.


Before I forget, this new video you posted debunks that other guy on here who said how would they be able to plant that engine with the 100's of responders there.  If you look at the photo at 1:10 in that video, it shows from afar the excavator digging in the hole.  There's only about a dozen people at the crater, not 100's.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> the picture of the engine is of them RECOVERING the engine. not planting it.


Recovering it after they just planted it.  You guys are saying they had to dig 45 feet down to dig out the plane.  Weren't the black boxes allegedly retrieved at around 20 feet?  The engine looks only a couple feet below the surface.  Sure didn't travel very far down!  But far enough for an FBI photo op. 



> the picture is from the moussoui (or however you spell that) trial. it was evidence admissible in a court of law that the wreckage was that of flight 93. you got any evidence that trumps that and proves it was planted?


I don't believe that photo was on trial, was it?  Did his defense lawyer even question the authenticity of that photo?  They probably assumed it was legit.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> You are a moron, there are dozens if not hundreds of pictures of the debris from flt 93.


Hundreds?  Link me.



> http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp2.jpg


Is that pieces of shredded white paper and a silver shovel?  What in the world is that photo supposed to prove?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You are a moron, there are dozens if not hundreds of pictures of the debris from flt 93.
> ...


really?






where do you see a silver shovel?


----------



## saiweril (Apr 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> where do you see a silver shovel?


I quoted the wrong image link.  Don't tell me you couldn't figure that out.  

What spot was that photo taken though?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > where do you see a silver shovel?
> ...


there isnt a shovel in the other one either

and both photos were taken at the crash site


----------



## Fizz (Apr 10, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > the picture of the engine is of them RECOVERING the engine. not planting it.
> ...



let me get this straight. your entire evidence consists of you claiming the engine and the bucket of the backhoe are relatively the same size. and this is your proof it was planted??

i'm sorry but you dont find this even the least bit fucking ridiculous?

imagine if it was the other way around and the FBI was claiming the engine was planted and their sole evidence was your claim that the bucket and the engine part were about the same size. you'd be all over that conspiracy shit saying how ridiculous it was.


----------



## eots (Apr 10, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8aj0WvkJKA&feature=related]YouTube - Close look at Boeing 747 Turbofan Engine (Pratt & Whitney)[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - Close look at Boeing 747 Turbofan Engine (Pratt & Whitney)


just what does a 474 engine have to do with a 757?


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQmUHyw866M&feature=related]YouTube - Continental Airlines Boeing 757-200 at Manchester Airport[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




The M trial exhibit didn't say it was an engine nor did it say it came from flight 93.  Thanks for proving again how you lie at will.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

A couple of things.....it doesn't make sense they would use a backhoe to unearth a crash site because it would easily damage evidence.  Since there was a crater they wouldn't need a backhoe to dig down.  Were they using the backhoe before the black boxes were recovered?  As for the op pic....there is no way in hell a backhoe would dig up that part and have so much of it exposed.  At first I thought the pic was showing the part after the backhoe dug it out of the ground then set it back on the crater to take a picture.  The only way it would be in that position is if the backhoe hit the part then moved the bucket away so people could go in the crater and remove all the dirt by hand and/or with small shovels.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The M trial exhibit didn't say it was an engine nor did it say it came from flight 93.  Thanks for proving again how you lie at will.



no, it calls it an "airplane part" recovered from where flight 93 crashed. if you want to split hairs over that then be my guest. it just goes to show what an ignorant jackass you are.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The M trial exhibit didn't say it was an engine nor did it say it came from flight 93.  Thanks for proving again how you lie at will.
> ...


thats the typical minutia troofers grasp onto


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> A couple of things.....it doesn't make sense they would use a backhoe to unearth a crash site because it would easily damage evidence.  Since there was a crater they wouldn't need a backhoe to dig down.  Were they using the backhoe before the black boxes were recovered?  As for the op pic....there is no way in hell a backhoe would dig up that part and have so much of it exposed.  At first I thought the pic was showing the part after the backhoe dug it out of the ground then set it back on the crater to take a picture.  The only way it would be in that position is if the backhoe hit the part then moved the bucket away so people could go in the crater and remove all the dirt by hand and/or with small shovels.



i'm kinda guessing here but i would think that the digging was done by hand and the backhoe was used for pieces that were too heavy for people to lift.

sorry if something that logical is too difficult for a twoofer to grasp.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The M trial exhibit didn't say it was an engine nor did it say it came from flight 93.  Thanks for proving again how you lie at will.
> ...




Thank you for proving your hostility regarding accurate facts.  Again.


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of things.....it doesn't make sense they would use a backhoe to unearth a crash site because it would easily damage evidence.  Since there was a crater they wouldn't need a backhoe to dig down.  Were they using the backhoe before the black boxes were recovered?  As for the op pic....there is no way in hell a backhoe would dig up that part and have so much of it exposed.  At first I thought the pic was showing the part after the backhoe dug it out of the ground then set it back on the crater to take a picture.  The only way it would be in that position is if the backhoe hit the part then moved the bucket away so people could go in the crater and remove all the dirt by hand and/or with small shovels.
> ...




Guessing? So you don't know how the site was excavated.  Nice.  The bucket wouldn't be there to lift out the heavy pieces.  If the it was done by hand they would have used a crane and sling to prevent damage.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Guessing? So you don't know how the site was excavated.  Nice.  The bucket wouldn't be there to lift out the heavy pieces.  If the it was done by hand they would have used a crane and sling to prevent damage.



proof please.


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> A more important question  to me is why were the attacks of 9/11 not properly investigated and why are several military air crash investigators so sceptically of the official story and the evidence presented



And isn't it amazing that only in the United States, where no one can keep their mouth shut about even the most sensitive and most classified intelligence and all it takes for enemies to find out our secrets is to read our own newspapers, especially if leaking it will damage the US in ANY way -that this massive conspiracy involving our government to slaughter its OWN CITIZENS was carried off without a hitch, without a leak,  plotted and carried out to perfection in a matter of mere months and even before the President was able to get his full administration in place and most importantly without a single person stepping forward and admitting any role in what would really be the most evil government plot in modern times.  It actually took Al Qaeda more than 3 years to plot, plan and train for this but it only took mere WEEKS for our government.  Even though it takes the better part of a year just for a new President to get his administration up and running but for the most evil plot in modern times for mass murder by government THAT is pulled off in mere weeks!  And what you never mention is that it would mean it was carried out without the least bit reluctance, without any objections, without any moral compunction by the HUNDREDS of people who had to have been part of the plot to kill innocent fellow citizens!   Assuming the ringleader of this plot already had no compunction about mass murder, finding just one other person who also had no moral compunction about mass murder of thousands of innocents would be difficult -but finding HUNDREDS who had no problem with slaughtering innocents was EASY!  And no regrets or remorse since because not a single person has stepped forward to give their tearful confession about how they just didn't know what they were doing, or about how they were unwitting pawns in the plot, had believed it would result in good but now their eyes are open and they see how evil it really was, or didn't realize so many would be killed or about how they can't sleep at night because of their role in mass murder of their own fellow citizens or blah, blah, blah on any of the usual regrets by someone with even a rudimentary conscience.   

And let's think about this one too.  That would mean THE most evil plot in modern times was actually carried out by THE most transparent government on the planet and not by one of the least -which hey, would sure suggest that having one of the LEAST transparent governments, ones where its own citizens cannot see what their own government is doing and cannot see how it carries out its assigned job -is actually much better than having the most transparent after all, huh?  Because now we all know that keeping the most evil plots and secrets in modern history is undoubtedly easier to do in the most transparent governments and not in the least transparent ones after all.........except that it is just one more thing that makes no sense in all this gibberish.  On the same plane as insisting that Bush lied about WMD and did so because of his "evil genius" to get us into war -but was just too stupid to PLANT any -which not only would have required far fewer participants in THAT plot than would have been needed for 9/11 but had years to plant them and would still have been accepted by the world at face value -yet never did that.  Even if you think Bush was just too stupid (while also having this Machiavellian evil genius) then surely at least one of the evil participants had enough on the ball to realize planting WMD was a no-brainer and much simpler plot to carry out than 9/11!  LOL  In fact it requires the total abandonment of all common sense, the ability to reason AND every shred of critical thinking skills to join ranks with you fruitcakes.  And not only can't I do that, I have no perverted NEED to do so.

The only thing you nutjobs have EVER been able to prove is true -is that your perverted NEED to believe the absolute worst about your own government is much, much stronger than your ability to reason.   I'm even willing to bet that in spite of your belief our own government did this, you were also in favor of that monstrosity of a "health care" bill that nearly doubles the size of government and massively expands its powers, one that stripped enough very real rights from its citizens that it resulted in the US being downgraded from a "free nation" to a "mostly free nation".   I feel pretty safe in reaching that conclusion because I've been around for a while now and see that is exactly how life works for those with no critical thinking skills. 

Go add another layer to your foil hat -they are stealing your brainwaves again.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

frazzledgear said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > A more important question  to me is why were the attacks of 9/11 not properly investigated and why are several military air crash investigators so sceptically of the official story and the evidence presented
> ...



is this the delusion you live in


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



you have hundreds of pictures...really...can we see them ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> you have hundreds of pictures...really...can we see them ?



what happened? you get banned from google images for trying to find too much gay porn?


----------



## saiweril (Apr 11, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> there isnt a shovel in the other one either


Then what is that silver shiny metal piece with the curved corner and dirt piled on the middle of it, like it's a shovel someone was using to dig?

I would also like to know what that large photo proves in general. 



> and both photos were taken at the crash site


That's not what I meant by the photo of the window pieces.  Where was the spot that window piece was taken?


----------



## saiweril (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> let me get this straight. your entire evidence consists of you claiming the engine and the bucket of the backhoe are relatively the same size. and this is your proof it was planted??


No.  This is the 3rd time you couldn't comprehend what I was saying.  Please get some glasses and or enroll in some English classes.

And for the 3rd time, watch that video I asked you to.  It has many pieces of evidence why that engine was planted by the backhoe.

It also talks about the ever changing story about the other engine allegedly found.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you have hundreds of pictures...really...can we see them ?
> ...



I wouldn't even know if you can find gay porn on goggle image or that you can get banned for-it but clearly you do...but I have only seen the same  6-12 images of flt 93 posted again and Again so if there are indeed hundreds I would like to see them


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you have hundreds of pictures...really...can we see them ?
> ...



Was that numb nuts talking to me? LOL maybe I really should clear my ignore list, I'm missing some fun.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

Ignore list.. Pffft..what a girly man


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

saiweril said:


> No.  This is the 3rd time you couldn't comprehend what I was saying.  Please get some glasses and or enroll in some English classes.
> 
> And for the 3rd time, watch that video I asked you to.  It has many pieces of evidence why that engine was planted by the backhoe.
> 
> It also talks about the ever changing story about the other engine allegedly found.



i watched the video. it had a lovely rendition of "little engine" and absolutely no evidence of anything at all. 

so rather than sending me all over the internet trying to find YOUR evidence for you, why dont you lay out what evidence there is that the engine was planted.

i mean, other evidence. we know that so far all we have determined is that the evidence shows the bucket of the backhoe and the piece of the engine are relatively the same size. that just cant happen without it being an inside job, right?!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you have hundreds of pictures...really...can we see them ?
> ...



Thank you for the great example of hypocrisy.  An OCTA makes a claim without evidence and when that is requested you go straight to ad hom mode.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



well if you feel bad for him you can email him some pics from your gay porn collection.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

fizz said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...



why do you always want to talk about gay porn and gay sex in 9/11 threads its really weird cant you and liwabilty just pm each other about your mutual hobbies ??...SO ABOUT THOSE HUNDREDS OF FLT 93 PICTURES ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> why do you always want to talk about gay porn and gay sex in 9/11 threads its really weird cant you and liwabilty just pm each other about your mutual hobbies ??...SO ABOUT THOSE HUNDREDS OF FLT 93 PICTURES ?


 i asked if you were banned from google for looking at too much gay porn. obviously you are too scared to admit it.

if you arent banned then this link will work just fine for you. i got 5,790,000 results. how many did you get?

flight 93 - Google Search


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...



They do it as a way of fishing for fresh meat.  It's a pretty efficient use of time....they get to hunt for cock shots while ignoring the fact they can't support their claims.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > why do you always want to talk about gay porn and gay sex in 9/11 threads its really weird cant you and liwabilty just pm each other about your mutual hobbies ??...so about those hundreds of flt 93 pictures ?
> ...



how many results you got on a goggle search is completely ireelevant..so  you found 5,790,ooo results for the same dozen photos of nothing,,,and your point is what ?


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > why do you always want to talk about gay porn and gay sex in 9/11 threads its really weird cant you and liwabilty just pm each other about your mutual hobbies ??...SO ABOUT THOSE HUNDREDS OF FLT 93 PICTURES ?
> ...




So you are saying he should support Ollie's claim. What a fuxxing hypocrite.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> how many results you got on a goggle search is completely ireelevant..so  you found 5,790,ooo results for the same dozen photos of nothing,,,and your point is what ?



please prove your contention that they are ALL the same 12 photos. 

go ahead....

go look at all 5,790,000 of them and see.


then post the 12 here and i will go through and see if i can find one to make it 13. 

you fucking moron. dont you see the irony here? you claim there are 12. he claims there are hundreds. you both did the same fucking thing so stop crying like a little girl.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

So you are saying there may be 13 ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> So you are saying he should support Ollie's claim. What a fuxxing hypocrite.



no jackass. i am saying there are lots of pictures. more than one. more than a dozen. if you include duplicates a couple million.

so whats your point again? 

all you need is one picture of airplane debris to have more evidence that a airliner crashed in PA than evidence one didnt crash there.

there is more evidence that flight 93 crashed there than evidence it didnt.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

I consistently see only the same few pictures ..you consistently post the same pictures...if 95 % of a plane was recovered and all these peoples remains identified.. Where are all the pictures ???


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> I consistently see only the same few pictures ..you consistently post the same pictures...if 95 % of a plane was recovered and all these peoples remains identified.. Where are all the pictures ???



if OJ killed his wife then where are all the pictures?

does not having pictures publicly available prove something didnt happen somehow?


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

fizz said:


> rots said:
> 
> 
> > i consistently see only the same few pictures ..you consistently post the same pictures...if 95 % of a plane was recovered and all these peoples remains identified.. Where are all the pictures ???
> ...



your statement makes zero sense..there are hundreds of pictures of the nicole simpson crime scene and pictures of all claimed evidence recovered.. And the courts ruled oj was not guilty and according to _you_ and your _appeal to authority _..he is in fact innocent because _courts _ruled such


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > rots said:
> ...



prove there are hundreds of pictures of the crime scene please. lets see em!!!
isnt that the SAME FUCKING THING YOU WANTED with flight 93?

the point is that not having pictures made public is not proof that an incident didnt occur.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I consistently see only the same few pictures ..you consistently post the same pictures...if 95 % of a plane was recovered and all these peoples remains identified.. Where are all the pictures ???
> ...


Nicole must not be dead
they dont have pictures of her dead body publicly available


----------



## CurveLight (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying he should support Ollie's claim. What a fuxxing hypocrite.
> ...




So you are saying he should support Ollie's claim. What a fuxxing hypocrite.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

fizz said:


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



yet they publish the pictures of pentagon staff killed on 9/11


OH AND BTW

http://www.members.tripod.com/~VanessaWest/nicoleface.jpg

http://vanessawest.tripod.com/crimescenephotos.html


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > how many results you got on a goggle search is completely ireelevant..so  you found 5,790,ooo results for the same dozen photos of nothing,,,and your point is what ?
> ...



Actually if this is about what I said, It was dozens if not hundreds. And I'll stand by that statement.


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


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



dozens or hundreds thats quite a range shit for brains..so you stand by your statement ..big deal.. the  fact remains you will post the same few pictures over and over because thats all there is


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> [
> So you are saying he should support Ollie's claim. What a fuxxing hypocrite.



stutter when you post?

i already answered this. its not my fault you are too stupid to comprehend the answer.

show me where i said he should support ollie's claim, you fucking liar.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


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



so now 4 pictures is hundreds?


----------



## eots (Apr 11, 2010)

> quote  dwivecon..The point is that not having pictures made public is not proof that an incident didnt occur.



it was in response to you little retarded freind dwivy


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 11, 2010)

eots said:


> > quote  dwivecon..The point is that not having pictures made public is not proof that an incident didnt occur.
> 
> 
> it was in response to you little retarded freind dwivy


more TPP

and i never said any such thing you lying punk


----------



## saiweril (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> i watched the video. it had a lovely rendition of "little engine" and absolutely no evidence of anything at all.
> 
> so rather than sending me all over the internet trying to find YOUR evidence for you, why dont you lay out what evidence there is that the engine was planted.
> 
> i mean, other evidence. we know that so far all we have determined is that the evidence shows the bucket of the backhoe and the piece of the engine are relatively the same size. that just cant happen without it being an inside job, right?!!!


There was many points of evidence in that video.  You saying there was absolutely no evidence leads me, one again, to believe you desperately need glasses, or that you are heavy into denial which I would suggest for you to seek the help of a psychiatrist.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > i watched the video. It had a lovely rendition of "little engine" and absolutely no evidence of anything at all.
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^tpp


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > i watched the video. it had a lovely rendition of "little engine" and absolutely no evidence of anything at all.
> ...



maybe the music glazed my eyes over.

why dont you list the evidence that video supposedly shows that is actual evidence the engine was planted? i would like to see what you consider evidence of it.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> maybe the music glazed my eyes over.
> 
> why dont you list the evidence that video supposedly shows that is actual evidence the engine was planted? i would like to see what you consider evidence of it.


I think I know what happened.  You just watched the youtube trailer and didn't follow the link at the end to the full video.  Watch it here.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > maybe the music glazed my eyes over.
> ...


that page doesnt even know what engines were used on a 757


----------



## saiweril (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> that page doesnt even know what engines were used on a 757


Really?



> The Pratt & Whitney PW2000 is a series of high-bypass turbofan  aero engines with a thrust range from 37,000 to 43,000 lbf (165 to 190 kN). Built by Pratt & Whitney, they were *designed for the Boeing 757*.
> 
> The first PW2000 series engines, *the PW2037, entered service on 757s* in 1984
> 
> Pratt & Whitney PW2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > quote  dwivecon..The point is that not having pictures made public is not proof that an incident didnt occur.
> ...





> quote dwivecon ..Nicole must not be dead
> they dont have pictures of her dead body publicly available


http://www.members.tripod.com/~Vanes...nicoleface.jpg

Crime Scene Photos


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


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


you didnt quote me the first time, dipshit
so fuck off
and learn some math while you are at it


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > that page doesnt even know what engines were used on a 757
> ...


but, were those the only engines used in 757's?
NO
were they the ones on flight 93, NO

dipshit


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > maybe the music glazed my eyes over.
> ...



i know i know what happened. you sent us to the wrong place. so instead of trying to send us all over the internet trying to get us to watch stupid fucking videos why dont you do what i asked and simply tell us what evidence there is that the engines were planted.

why is this so difficult for you?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

saiweril said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > maybe the music glazed my eyes over.
> ...



A site that offers more truther questions and makes accusations that the FBI lied. How many of these sites do you think it will take to make it true?


----------



## slackjawed (Apr 13, 2010)

*How to Plant an Engine*
_S.L.Ackjawed, P.E., (ret)_
This is an important first step. The reason why this step is first is because everything you do might depend on where you are going to plant your engine. For example, if you want to plant an engine in a park, you first need to find out who manages the park (is this a city park, state park, private, etc.) and ask their permission to plant an engine. They might say "yes, you can plant an engine but we can only plant certain kinds of engines" - for example some parks will only plant native engines (engines that have historically grown in the area) or they might have an engine planting plan that identifies historically engines grown in the area) or they might have an engine planting plan that identifies the type of engines to be planted. Or, you might be planting an engine near power and telephone wires so in selecting an engine you would want one that would not grow tall or fast (a jet engine for example). You might even want to replace an engine that has been destroyed by lightening or killed by disease. Replacing theengine with the same kind of engine would be nice.

In selecting a site, remember, our communities and cities need and have an ongoing need - to have engines planted by people. That's because life is hard in the city for an engine: engines that might grow from seeds are cut by lawn mowers, sidewalks prevent water absorption by engines plus the added work of cleaning the air of auto emissions makes survival tough for engines. So the cities and town really need more engines!

Once you have identified where you would like to plant an engine, you need to ask permission from the owner or the manager of the property. This person might be a state mechanic, park mechanic or the mechanic at your school. This rule even applies if you want to plant an engine in your yard at home - you still need to ask for permission of your parents.

(adapted from How To Plant A Tree)


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

you cant even verify it is an engine


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/graphics/seatbelt.jpg

http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/graphics/debris.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/scene_cnn.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater-wps.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater-wwd.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_wtae1.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater-epa2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial-usinfo.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_diagram.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate-epa2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate-epa3.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate-amny.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate_sptimes.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate-da1.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae1.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae3.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_wtae4.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_pc1.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_pc2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_pc3.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_pc4.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp5.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp6.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp6.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp8.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rcfp9.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/debris_rj.jpg


----------



## saiweril (Apr 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> saiweril said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


You made it sound like that model is not used on 757's, which it is.



> were they the ones on flight 93, NO
> 
> dipshit


Then which ones were Mr. Smartypants?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> you cant even verify it is an engine



you cant verify you have a brain.


----------



## saiweril (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> i know i know what happened. you sent us to the wrong place.


No, you just didn't pay attention to follow the link to the full video.



> so instead of trying to send us all over the internet trying to get us to watch stupid fucking videos why dont you do what i asked and simply tell us what evidence there is that the engines were planted.
> 
> why is this so difficult for you?


The video with all the evidence in it was just easier.  

It also debunks the other engine found.  You should just watch the video.

Hoodwinked at Shanksville: The Little Engine That Couldn't


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you cant even verify it is an engine
> ...



and you cant deal with the fact you cant even verify its an engine


----------



## Fizz (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


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



so what are you claiming it is? a rock?


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/graphics/seatbelt.jpg
> a seat belt
> http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/graphics/debris.jpg
> 
> ...


a _hole_ lot of nothing 000.1 % of the 95% claimed recovered...you just proved the only pictures of debris are the half dozen we have all seen


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

I posted links to a few pictures from a few sites, there are hundreds more, But even if that plane were somehow miraculously reconstructed you would find an argument that says it isn't the right plane or some such nonsense.

 The FBI reported that about 95% of the plane was recovered. 

The FBI is the lead investigating agency.


I and most of the country believe the FBI.


----------



## eots (Apr 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I posted links to a few pictures from a few sites, there are hundreds more, But even if that plane were somehow miraculously reconstructed you would find an argument that says it isn't the right plane or some such nonsense.
> 
> * The FBI reported that about 95% of the plane was recovered.
> 
> ...



you have nothing but pictures of people in Fields and the same 6 pictures of debris shown over and over...so all you have to go on is blind faith in the FBI


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 13, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I posted links to a few pictures from a few sites, there are hundreds more, But even if that plane were somehow miraculously reconstructed you would find an argument that says it isn't the right plane or some such nonsense.
> ...



Faith in the FBI and all the agencies including NTSB that assisted in the investigation and recovery efforts.

What have you got? Empty Accusations


----------



## tomk (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


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



It is completely unnecessary and irrelevant whether fizz can identify that it is an engine. 

Or whether I can.
Or whether you can. 

The only thing that matters is whether or not an expert in turbine engines can.

That question can be simply answered by asking yourself if you think the prosecutors that put Mossaoui on trial were so unconcerned with their reputations & their jobs that, in the biggest trial of their lives, they'd be willing to suffer the public humiliation of having the defense team bring up their own expert to testify "wrong engine".

BTW, there were 33 "serial numbers" of "parts" that were verified as being on that particular plane on that particular day. Those serial numbers are the DNA of the passengers. 

4 serial numbers were recorded, but could not be identified. Because their families in the Middle East know what you don't know: that their kin folk were aboard that plane. Otherwise they would have provided the DNA samples that would have exonerated their relatives.

Tom


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

tomk said:


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


logic doesnt work with troofers


----------



## tomk (Apr 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I posted links to a few pictures from a few sites, there are hundreds more, But even if that plane were somehow miraculously reconstructed you would find an argument that says it isn't the right plane or some such nonsense.
> 
> The FBI reported that about 95% of the plane was recovered.
> 
> ...



Sarge,

Nice to meetcha.

First, thanks for your service.

Second, there are two possible interpretations of FBI Agent Crowley's statement about the amount of the plane that was recovered.

1. That 95% of the plane was recovered & turned over to the airlines.
2. That 95% of however much was recovered was turned over to the airlines.

I don't know which one is correct. I lean a bit towards the second case, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. There is far more than enough proof that it was, in fact, UA93. 

Your point about how much info the FBI has, and does not release to the public, is an excellent one. And this excerpt from a NatGeo video about the history of the FBI speaks precisely to that point. There are tens of thousands of pieces of evidence that the public does not know about. And that they don't need to know about. 

The innately suspicious nature of angry young boys does not create a requirement for the FBI (or any police force or DA) to open up their evidence files to the public. Privacy concerns (and in this case, security concerns) require that those files NOT be released. Even if it cheeses them off.

I haven't posted enough to post url's yet, so you can fix the url.

www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=P72v8zryZAE
YouTube - Flight 93 Crash site evidence collected

The truthers think that they have some right to view the evidence in any arbitrary criminal investigation. They would be wrong about that, of course.

Here, btw, is the rest of that show. Worth a watch. Makes you appreciate what they do, and how difficult their job is. 

www dot hulu dot com/watch/70080/national-geographic-specials-the-fbi
Hulu - National Geographic Specials: The FBI


Tom


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2010)

tomk said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I posted links to a few pictures from a few sites, there are hundreds more, But even if that plane were somehow miraculously reconstructed you would find an argument that says it isn't the right plane or some such nonsense.
> ...



this one?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P72v8zryZAE]YouTube - Flight 93 Crash site evidence collected[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> tomk said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



the one that says the FBI holds the paper evidence you attrubuted to the evidence stored at iron moutain


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

tomk said:


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


In recent years, evidence of problems ranging from negligence to outright deception has been uncovered at crime labs in at least 17 states. Among the failures were faulty blood analysis, fingerprinting errors, flawed hair comparisons and the contamination of evidence used in DNA testing.

Scandal also has hit the FBI crime lab, long considered the nation's top forensic facility.

Scandal Touches Even Elite Labs


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > tomk said:
> ...



Actually I haven't said anything about iron Mountain. I said things are classified for a reason. Normally National security , but you would have to question the FBI about that. Or words to that effect.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> tomk said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And this means what? Are you trying to say the FBI screwed up the entire investigation? That you are right and they are wrong? And the proof is that they are human and make mistakes and you aren't so you don't?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> In recent years, evidence of problems ranging from negligence to outright deception has been uncovered at crime labs in at least 17 states. Among the failures were faulty blood analysis, fingerprinting errors, flawed hair comparisons and the contamination of evidence used in DNA testing.
> 
> Scandal also has hit the FBI crime lab, long considered the nation's top forensic facility.
> 
> Scandal Touches Even Elite Labs



and this has what to do with how the engine was planted?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


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


wasnt it HIM, Id-Eots, that brought up Iron Mountain in the first place?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Exactly. With a video if I remember right.


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


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


yup another youtube video
he posts so many he should start earning money from youtube for promoting them


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


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



was it not you that posted that the _chared evidence _stored at iron mountain was not air craft wreckage but documents ?..yet this shows the the paper documents to be archived with the FBI...so whats at iron mountain ?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


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


after YOU posted that the actual plane wreckage was there
and if they are stored at Iron Mountain, they would STILL be in the possesion of the FBI, dipshit
since Iron mountain is only the storage facility


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > In recent years, evidence of problems ranging from negligence to outright deception has been uncovered at crime labs in at least 17 states. Among the failures were faulty blood analysis, fingerprinting errors, flawed hair comparisons and the contamination of evidence used in DNA testing.
> ...





> BTW, there were 33 "serial numbers" of "parts" that were verified as being on that particular plane on that particular day. Those serial numbers are the DNA of the passengers.
> 
> 4 serial numbers were recorded, but could not be identified. Because their families in the Middle East know what you don't know: that their kin folk were aboard that plane. Otherwise they would have provided the DNA samples that would have exonerated their relatives.



it is a response to this nonsense


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



this did not say iron moutain , this was the FBI archives..if the air craft parts recoverd are not at iron moutain where are they ?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


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


no shit, dipshit
i just stated that even if it WAS at Iron Mountain, it would STILL be in the possession of the FBI
are you THAT fucking stupid you cant understand simple english?


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

> no shit, dipshit
> i just stated that even if it WAS at Iron *Motain*, it would STILL be in the possession of the FBI
> are you THAT fucking stupid you cant understand simple english




So then you do agree the parts are stored at Iron mountain as I originally stated ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


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



no jackass. YOU claimed that it was aircraft wreckage and I said "charred evidence" doesnt not equate to aircraft wreckage. 

do you have any evidence at all that any aircraft wreckage is stored at iron mountain?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> > no shit, dipshit
> > i just stated that even if it WAS at Iron *Mountain*, it would STILL be in the possession of the FBI
> > are you THAT fucking stupid you cant understand simple english
> 
> ...


no, dipshit

and stop pointing out typos dipshit
everyone makes those


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

The only thing I can find as to the fate of the wreckage is that one news report and statements from pilots for 9/11 truth there seems to be no official statement or mainstream news articles of any kind


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > no shit, dipshit
> ...



so you have no clue where they are ?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


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


i really dont give a rats ass where they are right now


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> The only thing I can find as to the fate of the wreckage is that one news report and statements from pilots for 9/11 truth there seems to be no official statement or mainstream news articles of any kind



look here. 



Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > can you provide any other statement as to the whereabouts of flt 93 evidence ?
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

Yes there is this one article but nothing official and it certainly does not dispute the claims of pilots for 9/11 truth that they are stored at iron mountain and classified.. It does not state where the wreckage is or if the evidence was destroyed


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

_Crowley also gave no details about any information taken from the cockpit voice recorder or the flight data recorder, which were found at the site. _

FBI Completes Flight 93 Investigation - Pittsburgh News Story - WTAE Pittsburgh


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2010)

FBI ends site work, says no bomb used

CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> Yes there is this one article but nothing official and it certainly does not dispute the claims of pilots for 9/11 truth that they are stored at iron mountain and classified.. It does not state where the wreckage is or if the evidence was destroyed



this shows what a complete fucking moron you are. on one hand you have anonymous people on the internet claiming one thing with no proof to back it up. on the other hand you have a news article.

you choose to believe the message board.

HAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

yeah, you are looking for the truth!!


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yes there is this one article but nothing official and it certainly does not dispute the claims of pilots for 9/11 truth that they are stored at iron mountain and classified.. It does not state where the wreckage is or if the evidence was destroyed
> ...



so the question remains where are the air craft parts..where are the serial numbers..where are the photographs of 95% of the plane ..that is the truth I am looking for and the core membership of pilots for 9/11 truth are far from anonymous and in fact includes two former presidents of the air accident investigation board


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> FBI ends site work, says no bomb used
> 
> CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - *September 24, 2001*



yes little ollie we all know the claims of the appaling so called FBI crash investigation YOUR LINKS do nothing to answer the question asked


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > FBI ends site work, says no bomb used
> ...



So you believe that the FBI lied to CNN. That CNN is now part of your cover up. OK whatever floats your boat.


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

if a spokesperson for the FBI lied to cnn how would that make at a press confrence that CNN and others repoted on how would that make CNN a Part of it ?


----------



## eots (Apr 15, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvC0vI5yHPI]YouTube - FEMA Press Confrence Had Fake Reporters[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> if a spokesperson for the FBI lied to cnn how would that make at a press confrence that CNN and others repoted on how would that make CNN a Part of it ?



proof the FBI lied?

didnt think so.


----------



## Fizz (Apr 15, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - FEMA Press Confrence Had Fake Reporters



you didnt tell us where or what was said. i watched the first 30 seconds.... nothing!! i'm not searching through videos looking for your evidence or wasting 5 minutes waiting for it.

tell us what was said and where or dont bother posting videos.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 16, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - FEMA Press Confrence Had Fake Reporters
> ...



It was a simple political stunt that has been used throughout history. Almost always is found out about and no one ever gives a shit other than a few journalists.


----------



## tomk (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> Yes there is this one article but nothing official and it certainly does not dispute the claims of pilots for 9/11 truth that they are stored at iron mountain and classified.. It does not state where the wreckage is or if the evidence was destroyed



PffffT??

LMAO.

HE is your source..? No wonder...

Balsamo pulls things out of his butt, polishes it up, and sells it to his credulous suckers, uh, "loyal clientele", daily. The wreckage is the property of the airline. Exactly like the hulk of your car, after it'd been in an accident, belongs to you. And would be returned to you after a criminal investigation, if it had been stolen & used in a crime. 

They keep the evidence, i.e., photos, test reports, tiny samples, etc. That is the 5%.

And return the rest (the 95%) to the owner. Much of the material belonged to the families of the passenger & crew. That stuff got returned to those people, as well. After it was photographed & logged.

The POINT here was that the FBI has an enormous amount of evidence (photos, lab reports, and small samples in case they have to perform any future tests) that they have kept in case anyone ever goes to trial. Evidence that the public has never seen. 

And that the public will not see unless & until all the suspects are confirmed to be dead. And even then, only a small amount of it may get turned over to a museum someplace. With a careful eye to the feelings of the families that were hurt by this event. 

That's the way it is with all criminal evidence. 
That's the way that it should be.

They aren't in the business of running a macabre circus for the morbid fascination of people who get off on crime.

And, contrary to Eots' intimation, the FBI is exquisitely aware that a huge part of their responsibility is making sure that they correctly exonerate the innocent, as well as get the evidence against the guilty.

So they tend to be at the forefront of making sure that their tests are valid & checked. 

They are not the Gestapo. In spite of some kids wanting to believe that. 


Tom


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

The whole bureau does not have to be corrupt only a select few of course there are many good people in the intuitions...so what happened to the claimed recovered air craft parts ? Where are the photos of the 95% of the recovered plane? Where are the serial numbers ?..where are the photos of remains ?


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> The whole bureau does not have to be corrupt only a select few of course there are many good people in the intuitions...so what happened to the claimed recovered air craft parts ? Where are the photos of the 95% of the recovered plane? Where are the serial numbers ?..where are the photos of remains ?



because a few people _may_ be corrupt that makes the statement that 95% was recovered invalid? 

thats all the proof you have? 


file a freedom of information request and ask them.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

pilots for 9/11 truth who I contribute to have done so and been denied


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> pilots for 9/11 truth who I contribute to have done so and been denied



so then you ask on this message board for information you know has not been released?


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

because disingenuous lying fucks like you keep claiming it is available


----------



## Fizz (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> because disingenuous lying fucks like you keep claiming it is available



what did i claim is available?


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


> because disingenuous lying fucks like you keep claiming it is available


why do you lie so much
no one has said any such thing
but PROOF is available to those with a functioning brain
it has already been posted, lying dipshit


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

veifable evidence of of the parts recovered and the claimed hundreds  of photos of the 95% of recovered aircraft


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > because disingenuous lying fucks like you keep claiming it is available
> ...



lol ..dwivys ol _already been posted_ line again


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


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


because it HAS been, dipshit
put the pot away and let your brain have a break from it for about 6 months and MAYBE you MIGHT be able to comprehend it


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



pot ? wtf are you on.. boy


----------



## DiveCon (Apr 16, 2010)

eots said:


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


more TPP from dipshit


----------

