9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SAYIT]

Maybe you'd like to post the facts that you rely on that solidifies your belief in the "official conspiracy theory" and the narrative you were told about 9-11 is "factually" sound?


There is no evidence that the temps required to destroy the WTC buildings were ever achieved, we know this, as well as the NIST tests being a failure, still they claim the destruction as being blamed on fires primarily.
Yet we witness comments by Dawgshit such as...this when a credible objection is made that the NIST narrative is proven by physics, science, and calculations, AND NIST's own failure to prove their guess is anywhere close to being true and correct.


Dipshit Dawgshit and his ilk are adhereing to "evidence" provided by NIST that has been shown and proven to be flawed, failed, unsound, and blatent lies. These people don't give a shit what anyone else says despite the fact that they can be pointed to the credible calculations, formulas, and information that shows the NIST and the OCT to be nothing more then BS.

The NIST report was laboriously prepared by credible scientists. Your prob and that of the loony CT world is it doen't conform to your lunacy. Carry on, Princess.

And just what is it that makes them (NIST) so credible, in your opinion...? And no, the problem we have with their sham "report" is not that it doesn't conform to any logical conspiracy theory at all.. it doesn't even conform to the one YOU cling to you fucking idiot!
Not only does it NOT fit their own version but it does not conform to known science, and the laws of physics, nor takes into consideration the properties of steel, fires, and heat dissipation among other important aspects, including some within the scientific community.

Now are you able to understand what the problem credible non partisan people in the science, and physics fields have with your conspiracy theory, or do you need to take a time out and go ask for some help?
See little one, once you actually investigate such matters you will know just how bad the NIST fucked up in their less then credible reports.
I'll give you time to study...run along now poobut...questions are coming..

The only conspiracy theory I "cling to" Princess is the one in which a twisted gang of terrorists hijacked 4 passenger jets and slammed them into America on 9/11/2001. Only shrill, desperate fools deny this fact. The rest of your thesis is based on the machinations of vivid imaginations coupled with the CTs varied nefarious agendas.
You are just a dupe of these CTs, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) ...

Once more for the terminally stupid. There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode. Give it up, Princess ... even your sources have.

Why isn't there evidence of explosions?

Your reading comp could use some work, Princess. Obviously there were intermittent explosions but not the large, sequential explosions associated with and necessary for a controlled demo. There is a complete lack of evidence that the building was rigged for demo or were felled by demo explosives, unless you have been holding out.

 

[SAYIT]

So please go ahead and tell us what was causing the towers to pull in the way they were........

Tell us what force caused the tons of massive steel components to be ejected hundreds of feet away, even imbedding into other buildings?
Tell us why you think the fires got hot enough when even NIST did not and could not prove it?
Why did they fall right through the path of most resistance?
Why was there only "minimal resistance" according to NIST?

Don't you have capability to look at this and think for yourself?
The questions above are what you should be asking, and finding answers for.

Your questions have been answered so completely and so often that your unwillingness to accept them can only be evidence of your lack of personal integrity. Air pressure associated with the building's sudden collapsed ejected materials at a high rate of speed and the lack of resistence is a function of the mostly hollow nature of any building.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I guess you guys missed my post, so here it is again:

Proof that at least one airliner hit the WTC. This Boeing 737 jet engine sits on the corner on Church and Murray after having exploded through the South Tower on 9/11.

Intact Boeing 737 Engine for comparison.

 

[SAYIT]

I guess you guys missed my post, so here it is again:

Proof that at least one airliner hit the WTC. This Boeing 737 jet engine sits on the corner on Church and Murray after having exploded through the South Tower on 9/11.

Intact Boeing 737 Engine for comparison.

Are there really still deniers claiming there were no planes?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Once more for the terminally stupid. There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode. Give it up, Princess ... even your sources have.

Why isn't there evidence of explosions?

Your reading comp could use some work, Princess. Obviously there were intermittent explosions but not the large, sequential explosions associated with and necessary for a controlled demo. There is a complete lack of evidence that the building was rigged for demo or were felled by demo explosives, unless you have been holding out.

If you say so, Shirley...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&NR=1&feature=endscreen]FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

Why isn't there evidence of explosions?

Your reading comp could use some work, Princess. Obviously there were intermittent explosions but not the large, sequential explosions associated with and necessary for a controlled demo. There is a complete lack of evidence that the building was rigged for demo or were felled by demo explosives, unless you have been holding out.

If you say so, Shirley...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&NR=1&feature=endscreen]FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]

They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.

 

[paulitician]

Your reading comp could use some work, Princess. Obviously there were intermittent explosions but not the large, sequential explosions associated with and necessary for a controlled demo. There is a complete lack of evidence that the building was rigged for demo or were felled by demo explosives, unless you have been holding out.

If you say so, Shirley...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&NR=1&feature=endscreen]FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]

They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.

Seriously, you must get paid to loiter here 24/7. My God, we get it already. You're a 100% loyal dedicated Goose Stepper. You can punch out now. SHEESH!

 

[Mad Scientist]

I guess you guys missed my post, so here it is again:

Proof that at least one airliner hit the WTC. This Boeing 737 jet engine sits on the corner on Church and Murray after having exploded through the South Tower on 9/11.

Intact Boeing 737 Engine for comparison.

Are there really still deniers claiming there were no planes?

Of course there were planes! that's a Boeing 737 Engine in the street, where else could it have come from?

Boeing 737.
Boeing 737.
Boeing 737.
Boeing 737.

Wait a minute, what kind of planes hit the buildings again?

 

[daws101]

yes it hurts you a lot. btw I see no difference betweenosting an excerpt of the NIST report and my own thoughts since they are the same facts.
your own so called thoughts are nothing more then an ignorant mix of fantasy pseudoscience and yammering.


"quote mining out of context phrases by authors you've never read or if you did you've misinterpreted them due to willful ignorance or sheer stupidity"-me
your lack of an answer to this statement can only mean you never have!

So you quote the NIST report as a source of rebuttal even though it is the NIST report that is the source of contention in the topic....brilliant...You couldn't buy a thought you're so stupid

only by you tin hat jackoffs who would argue that the sunrise is a plot to give us all skin cancer!

 

[daws101]

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) ...

There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode.

You mean other than the fact that that is EXACTLY what they DID?? Explode?

bullshit
[ame=http://youtu.be/9Q5S0ehGhR4]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Once more for the terminally stupid: There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode.

You mean other than the fact that that is EXACTLY what they DID?? Explode?

They did not explode ... they collapsed.
Demo explosions occur in a carefully orchestrated sequence and the Towers would have required many such large, sequential explosions . No evidence of demo rigging was found and the NIST concluded the cause of the explosions was the fire, not vice versa. There were no sequential explosions, no proof that the NIST report was tainted and none that its authors were incompetent. You have only "gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder" (Crimson Tide) and the assurance of like-minded CTs who believe in the same pseudoscience you do and share your total distrust of America and Americans.

[ame=http://youtu.be/9Q5S0ehGhR4]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

You mean other than the fact that that is EXACTLY what they DID?? Explode?

They did not explode ... they collapsed.
Demo explosions occur in a carefully orchestrated sequence and the Towers would have required many such large, sequential explosions . No evidence of demo rigging was found and the NIST concluded the cause of the explosions was the fire, not vice versa. There were no sequential explosions, no proof that the NIST report was tainted and none that its authors were incompetent. You have only "gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder" (Crimson Tide) and the assurance of like-minded CTs who believe in the same pseudoscience you do and share your total distrust of America and Americans.

[ame=http://youtu.be/9Q5S0ehGhR4]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]

The CT story morphs as the facts destroy their fantasies. Since there was no evidence of explosives, they must have been secret, super high-tech stuff the demo industry knows nothing about. Uh-huh. Of course, no one noticed the small army of demo techs requiring months to rig the towers because ... they never existed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Your reading comp could use some work, Princess. Obviously there were intermittent explosions but not the large, sequential explosions associated with and necessary for a controlled demo. There is a complete lack of evidence that the building was rigged for demo or were felled by demo explosives, unless you have been holding out.

If you say so, Shirley...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&NR=1&feature=endscreen]FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]

They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.

Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.

 

[SAYIT]

If you say so, Shirley...

FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center - YouTube

They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.

Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.

The key word is 'like' as in "like they had detonators," Princess. Funny how their conversation was conveniently taped and uploaded, eh? I'd say it was planned, a conspiracy even! There is no evidence that any of those firemen have ever witnessed a demo and absolutely none that the towers were rigged or felled by explosives. None.
You're nothing but a srill and desperate CT dupe who's been had by the Alex Jones's of the CT World and your blind spot is plainly obvious.

 

[GuyPinestra]

They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.

Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.

The key word is 'like' as in "like they had detonators," Princess. Funny how their conversation was conveniently taped and uploaded, eh? I'd say it was planned, a conspiracy even! There is no evidence that any of those firemen have ever witnessed a demo and absolutely none that the towers were rigged or felled by explosives. None.
You're nothing but a srill and desperate CT dupe who's been had by the Alex Jones's of the CT World and your blind spot is plainly obvious.

OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story.

I'm guessing the only thing you DO like is to troll forums trying to disrupt discussions of what really happened that day.

Enjoy!

 

[daws101]

They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.

Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.

The key word is 'like' as in "like they had detonators," Princess. Funny how their conversation was conveniently taped and uploaded, eh? I'd say it was planned, a conspiracy even! There is no evidence that any of those firemen have ever witnessed a demo and absolutely none that the towers were rigged or felled by explosives. None.
You're nothing but a srill and desperate CT dupe who's been had by the Alex Jones's of the CT World and your blind spot is plainly obvious.

so I guess hundreds of floors at an acre square, collapsing and pushing millions of cubic feet of air at high speeds don't make a sound much like an explosion?

 

[daws101]

Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.

The key word is 'like' as in "like they had detonators," Princess. Funny how their conversation was conveniently taped and uploaded, eh? I'd say it was planned, a conspiracy even! There is no evidence that any of those firemen have ever witnessed a demo and absolutely none that the towers were rigged or felled by explosives. None.
You're nothing but a srill and desperate CT dupe who's been had by the Alex Jones's of the CT World and your blind spot is plainly obvious.

OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story.

I'm guessing the only thing you DO like is to troll forums trying to disrupt discussions of what really happened that day.

Enjoy!

first hand accounts that cannot be linked to actual physical evidence are not credible.
videos produced or falsely interpreted by the paranoid are even less credible ..

 

[SFC Ollie]

If you say so, Shirley...

FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center - YouTube

They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.

Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.

Yep we heard the man say it was "LIKE" not it was..Now please tell us what makes him an expert on demolition? Or better yet what makes him more of an expert than the real experts that do it for a living.... BTW We've seen this video at least 100 times.....It still proves nothing other than people have opinions....

 

[SFC Ollie]

And also did you even bother to watch the national geographic video?