250+ Disturbing facts surrounding 9/11

[LA RAM FAN]

Any real evidence hidden in those facts anywhere?

thats the Bush dupes for sure when they are presented evidence,facts and witness testimonys since it doesnt go along with their version of events.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Any real evidence hidden in those facts anywhere?

I suppose you consider that "evidence".

of course not Slackass but its a good pic of you disinfo agents.

 

[slackjawed]

I suppose you consider that "evidence".

of course not Slackass but its a good pic of you disinfo agents.

My legs are hairier than that.......

 

[georgephillip]

Why didn't NIST test for evidence of explosives?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Because common sense ruled the use of explosives out.

 

[georgephillip]

The National Fire Protection Association's guide book seems to disagree:

'WHY DOES NIST REFUSE TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES?
To this day NIST refuses to test for the possibility of explosives. 'Considering' is NOT testing. Private parties have tested, and found evidence of explosives.

"So, how does NIST explain their refusal to test for explosives? Here it is:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

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

"For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.'
NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.

Ironically, the National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2."

Fire Fighter For 9-11 Truth

 

[georgephillip]

"For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes.

"Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.”
NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.

"Ironically, the National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General:
“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth

 

[georgephillip]

Would that be "common sense" as employed by fire fighters?

"A common sense test: You’re dispatched to a house fire in a 2 story with a basement. Upon arrival, all 3 floors are well involved. After extinguishment, the neighbor across the street tells you he saw flashes on all 3 floors within seconds of each other. It turns out the owner has arson convictions on his record. You smell gasoline. Now, should you test the debris for accelerants? No matter what the owner and his friends tell you, wouldn’t you still test it? It’s a “NO-Brainer”…isn’t it?

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth

 

[Mr. Jones]

...you can't even agree that president adjernutjob is the most powerful truther in the world, AND that is a disturbing fact?


That just seems downright pig-headed of you idEOTs, it really does.

Actually the most powerful truther is probably D. Jones, who discovered the nano thermite, and who is joined with A&E for 9-11 Truth. You trying to associate honest decent people with the leader of Iran, is just another bullshit misdirection which assumes we are disloyal, a guilt by association fallacy. If he doesn't believe the official 9-11 conspiracy, and we don't either, then we are in his camp somehow. Fucking retard.

You mean D Jones, one of the few paid truthers? LOL

Why don't you tell us about D Jones, and how much he gets paid.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Because common sense ruled the use of explosives out.

What a joke. You people act like you don't have common sense.

 

[eots]

Because common sense ruled the use of explosives out.

no it didn't they told you that and you accepted it

 

[candycorn]

Because common sense ruled the use of explosives out.

What a joke. You people act like you don't have common sense.

We all generally believe the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points.

It makes perfect sense. Everything you ask us to believe doesn't make sense at all.

You, sir, are an idiot. OR....perhaps you can regale us with your narrative and let us see what REALLY happened. You can't. You won't. Pussy.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Because common sense ruled the use of explosives out.

What a joke. You people act like you don't have common sense.

We all generally believe the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points.

It makes perfect sense. Everything you ask us to believe doesn't make sense at all.

You, sir, are an idiot. OR....perhaps you can regale us with your narrative and let us see what REALLY happened. You can't. You won't. Pussy.

You mean The 9-11 omission Report? The one where they don't mention wtc 7, or the one that a former senior counsel of the 9-11 omission report, John Farmer writes in his book
"Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . "
What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com

Sounds like the report you all worship and agree with is being called bullshit by the very ones who were involved in putting it together. You can't/wont believe this either huh traitor coward?

 

[slackjawed]

Twoofers are such treasonous little morons, and actually think youtubes are evidence of something.

 

[candycorn]

What a joke. You people act like you don't have common sense.

We all generally believe the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points.

It makes perfect sense. Everything you ask us to believe doesn't make sense at all.

You, sir, are an idiot. OR....perhaps you can regale us with your narrative and let us see what REALLY happened. You can't. You won't. Pussy.

You mean The 9-11 omission Report? The one where they don't mention wtc 7,

No, the Commission Report about the attacks. Since WTC 7 wasn't attacked it shouldn't have been in the report.

or the one that a former senior counsel of the 9-11 omission report, John Farmer writes in his book
"Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described ….
The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

Gee, the investigated lies to investigators and you act like this never happens. If this was a barrier to a full and accurate report, no investigation into any act that may have consequences would be considered full and accurate. The investigated always try to show themselves in the best light or cover for others. I'm sure your boss asks you questions (probably every day) about your poor performance and, judging from the way you sound, you are full of excuses and diversions. At no point does Farmer say it was an inside job. You left that out.

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . "
What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com

Tom Kean stands by his commission's report.

It is the only version of events that makes any sense. Perhaps YOU can tell us where you disagree with some of it Jess...You did read it didn't you? I'm guessing not.

Sounds like the report you all worship and agree with is being called bullshit by the very ones who were involved in putting it together. You can't/wont believe this either huh traitor coward?

Because that isn't the case at all; you're the one calling it "bullshit" and as we all know, the only bullshit in the conversation is between your ears.

 

[candycorn]

What a joke. You people act like you don't have common sense.

We all generally believe the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points.

It makes perfect sense. Everything you ask us to believe doesn't make sense at all.

You, sir, are an idiot. OR....perhaps you can regale us with your narrative and let us see what REALLY happened. You can't. You won't. Pussy.

You mean The 9-11 omission Report? The one where they don't mention wtc 7, or the one that a former senior counsel of the 9-11 omission report, John Farmer writes in his book
"Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . "
What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com

Sounds like the report you all worship and agree with is being called bullshit by the very ones who were involved in putting it together. You can't/wont believe this either huh traitor coward?

All addressed in other post.

So , now why don't you tell us what you're version of events are so that you have to stand by your own words instead of having to borrow from videos and other morons.

Try to have a little pride and state something on your own for a change.

You too much of a pussy to do that?

 

[creativedreams]

One of my favorite threads....

 

[DiveCon]

creativedreams..... Very appropriate user name.

actually repetitiousdelusions would be more fitting

 

[ohio_golfer]

Why didn't NIST test for evidence of explosives?

Why didn't the NIST test for evidence of nuclear fallout?

Why didn't the NIST test for evidence of a destructo-ray from outer space?

Why didn't the NIST test for evidence of Godzilla's teeth marks?

Why didn't the NIST test for evidence of ninjas?

Why didn't the NIST test for...

 

[Mr. Jones]

We all generally believe the 9/11 Commission Report on the major points.

It makes perfect sense. Everything you ask us to believe doesn't make sense at all.

You, sir, are an idiot. OR....perhaps you can regale us with your narrative and let us see what REALLY happened. You can't. You won't. Pussy.

No, the Commission Report about the attacks. Since WTC 7 wasn't attacked it shouldn't have been in the report.


Gee, the investigated lies to investigators and you act like this never happens. If this was a barrier to a full and accurate report, no investigation into any act that may have consequences would be considered full and accurate. The investigated always try to show themselves in the best light or cover for others. I'm sure your boss asks you questions (probably every day) about your poor performance and, judging from the way you sound, you are full of excuses and diversions. At no point does Farmer say it was an inside job. You left that out.


Tom Kean stands by his commission's report.

It is the only version of events that makes any sense. Perhaps YOU can tell us where you disagree with some of it Jess...You did read it didn't you? I'm guessing not.

Sounds like the report you all worship and agree with is being called bullshit by the very ones who were involved in putting it together. You can't/wont believe this either huh traitor coward?

Because that isn't the case at all; you're the one calling it "bullshit" and as we all know, the only bullshit in the conversation is between your ears.

I quote people that were involved in writing the Omission Report, and you still deny and argue that it is not a flawed investigation. You are a shill and a traitor, and a coward. You're all over the internet on different sites spewing the same denial and disinformation tactics. You are a boot licking treasonous little whore.