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

[Mr. Jones]

Fuck you Jones, you have the same shit day after day and you've been proven wrong day after day to everyone except yourself and your deluded friends. And then you back up the most stupid of the stupid.

It doesn't matter what is proved or what isn't as far as you are concerned if it doesn't fit with what you want to be the truth then it's a lie.

So once again fuck you and your stupidity. I have nothing to prove and you have failed at disproving anything. So there you go. The official investigation stands unless you can disprove it and you can't. Only by pointing your finger like 911nutjob and calling liar.

When you can show us any other way that the buildings bowed in let me know, And when you find that molten steel shaped like a river you let me know. And when you get your head out of your ass wash your hair..............

It is impossible to prove anything to an admitted idiot!
Every step of the way you post something and it is soundly rebutted and rejected with evidence to back up our assertions, and what do you do?
You claim ignorance. You mention the perimeter walls bowing in, while saying they were ejected and it doesn't register within you how absurd you sound..We point this out to you, and again you claim ignorance..
We agree with you that the towers did not come down at FF speed, but we show you how impossible it still is for them to come down at the newer estimated speeds...
You claim ignorance...
It never ends with you. You claim to not be smart enough enough to understand what we post and say, but you miraculously become smart enough to understand what NIST says???

Me thinks you are a liar Ollie..There's no other explanation that describes you.
Why don't you get back to me when you find the proof that massive steel buildings that are constructed in a tapered manner, IE: stronger near the middle and bottoms, can come exploding down, while EJECTING tons of steel walls
that you describe as "bowing in" first???
Also come back in support of your wild conspiracy theory, when you can substantiate any of it, till then the NIST/Bazant theory is a mountain of scientific fraud and physical impossibilities, that are only believed by the stupid and ignorant people who claim to be patriotic Americans, or by terrified stooges that are dependent on US government grants and contracts to earn a living.

Bottom line here is that the nation you claim to have protected is controlled by a cabal of criminals, who assisted in perpetrating the attacks on 9-11 and blamed it on Israels enemies. That part of the conspiracy is not too technical to learn about, and is easy to filter through. But you keep on living in your delusional conspiracy that you believe because it is an "official" theory, and keep pretending you are some valiant warrior.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I hear blah blah blah......

And asshole no one calls me a lair. And you now have a problem with someone admitting that they are not a physicist? But you must be because you know more about it than 99.99% of them.

Fuck you dickhead, I'm beginning to believe that nutjob is one of your socks........

 

[Mr. Jones]

two things sister JONES None of what I've posted has been proven false. it's a fantasy you and others like you believe in.

You post the same old things that NIST theorizes, and we post evidence that proves it false. You say what we post does not prove it false, but you always fail to back it up with anything that substantiates your claim that what you are posting is A) True and factual. and B) That what we post is false.

nothing you have ever posted has even come close to proving a conspiracy by the government , the use of thermite or explosives, or space beams.

I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.
I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing.
I never claimed anything about space beams you lying fucking asshole.

I laugh every time you make that completely erroneous declaration.

I laugh at you when you run away from a challenge while claiming to have substantiated your position, when the fact is apparent that you have not.

It's also a real hoot when you post so called refutations of other posts.
my favorite false claim made by you is "the laws of physics were( depending on what site you're cutting and pasting from) broken, altered, etc..
if that were so where is your precedence setting results proving the laws could be broken in the first place.?

No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow, but despite me and others asking you concerning this, you never have anything to say about it, except try to turn it around on us, as though we think it perfectly normal for the laws of science, and physics to be altered, or broken, which we do not. Got it now shithead??

you do understand that everything you post regarding the government, explosives thermite, in short the whole of your twoofer theory is based on a false premise, specious conjecture on that premise and denial of fact.
you have no quantifiable evidence of ant kind to back up you nonsense.

No you see, it is what YOU insist is true, IE: the OCT, and the NIST theory that is based on specious conjecture. Much of what you defend can not be factually confirmed, or backed up by data. But once a person truly understands that tapered constructed massive steel buildings can not physically come down by kerosene fires, 3 times in one day, it blows a gigantic hole on your specious conjecture ridden theory.
What we do is the opposite of what you do. We post more scientifically and physically sound theories, complete with calculations that take into consideration available facts, such as the laws of physics, motion, and properties of fire, and steel, and the buildings construction, and the designers statements etc we and even use parts of the reports
that you believe in, to show we have a more valid theory.
All you do is keep on posting shit that we have already shown is very highly unlikely, and MOST likely are lies.

the other thing shit head is this "btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none."ME
in your obsessive zealotry you've either lost the ability to read or you never had it in the first place.
In that statement I never say that in my option " the Bazant hypothesis" is a steaming pile.
what I did say (since you are prone to willful misrepresentation) was that YOU SISTER JONES SHOW ME THE TEST RESULTS THAT PROVE the Bazant hypothesis IS EITHER FACT OR A STEAMING PILE.
YOU as always epically failed.
anyone without misfiring neurons could see that.

You still trying to weasel out of that huge blunder and save face?? LOL!!
Anybody reading that series of posts will come to the same conclusion, that you were asking me to prove the Bazant theory was correct. That you thought of it as just "that," a theory, and then asked me to show you proof that IT WAS NOT a "steaming pile"!
What you also failed miserably at was being man enough to admit that you thought the Bazant theory was something I approved and encouraged, and admit your huge ignorant oversight and move on!

Bottom line you are so fucking ignorant that you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

If you think the NIST theory is credible, then by all means post your validating information and details for all of us to see. You haven't thus far, and appear too stupid to notice.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I hear blah blah blah......

And asshole no one calls me a lair. And you now have a problem with someone admitting that they are not a physicist? But you must be because you know more about it than 99.99% of them.

Fuck you dickhead, I'm beginning to believe that nutjob is one of your socks........

I call a spade a spade Ollie. How else is one supposed to interpret you when you say, you don't understand what we post, but then turn around and say that you DO understand the NIST theory? Seems like you just cherry pick what you want to understand. And your 99.99% figure is not factual, how in the fuck can you back that up? Got any data, that shows you know what others are thinking?
I've got data that shows high percentage rates among people who DON'T believe in the wild and absurd CT that you do..

What is clear is that we can substantiate our theory as more plausible, and you can't. Even when you try to use the NIST information you still can't. For 2 reasons...1) because you say you don't understand it, and 2) because it is scientifically, and physically wrong...because it is impossible!
So say again how it is that you can say we are wrong in our thinking, when you admit to not understanding it?
Which is it? Do you understand the NIST theory, or don't you?
Do you care enough about the country you claim to have "defended" to even try to understand any of this??

 

[candycorn]

The discussion at hand was regarding the WTC buildings, and like always you have nothing to say that reflects well regarding your insane OCT regarding the WTC buildings...so in desperation, you try to change things up by mentioning something unrelated like the light poles...hundreds of fucking miles away...

...what happened at the Pentagon, light poles or not, plane or not, still does not answer or begin to explain the obvious and glaring problems NIST has with their narrative..

The discussion at hand is whatever I want it to be since you can't have a conspiracy in Washington but not one in New York or vice versa.

So it has to be explained and we're going on 12 years of you ducking the question. Keep ducking...we'll wait.

Meanwhile, you cannot quote one major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission Report--it's BULLET PROOF!

Meanwhile you have never been able to refute any of the posted information regarding the WTC that show that something else had to have assisted the demise of the buildings.
The 9-11 commission has for years now, been shown to be based on lies and is not regarded as being at all accurate, this comes from the panelists themselves.
All one need do is look at the information regarding the WTC buildings to know that the narrative is false The 9-11 commission report is itself based on tortured testimony, to even try to pass it off as legitimate, and go so far as to label it "bullet proof" is stupid.

But we already have known long ago, you are an anti American Zionist zealot, who tries desperately to legitimize that which can not stand.
Your appeal to the impossible with no proof of any legitimacy is stupid and only agreed with by other anti American Zionists zealots.
Your official conspiracy theory is based on BS, and has been exposed as BS. That is why you pop up every once in a while and try to resurrect long dead threads, and positions you defended, that were subsequently destroyed as illogical and impossible by science and physics, and not based on real facts.

Quote the major inaccuracies....would you, please?

 

[daws101]

two things sister JONES None of what I've posted has been proven false. it's a fantasy you and others like you believe in.

You post the same old things that NIST theorizes, and we post evidence that proves it false. You say what we post does not prove it false, but you always fail to back it up with anything that substantiates your claim that what you are posting is A) True and factual. and B) That what we post is false.

I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.
I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing.
I never claimed anything about space beams you lying fucking asshole.


I laugh at you when you run away from a challenge while claiming to have substantiated your position, when the fact is apparent that you have not.

No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow, but despite me and others asking you concerning this, you never have anything to say about it, except try to turn it around on us, as though we think it perfectly normal for the laws of science, and physics to be altered, or broken, which we do not. Got it now shithead??

you do understand that everything you post regarding the government, explosives thermite, in short the whole of your twoofer theory is based on a false premise, specious conjecture on that premise and denial of fact.
you have no quantifiable evidence of ant kind to back up you nonsense.

No you see, it is what YOU insist is true, IE: the OCT, and the NIST theory that is based on specious conjecture. Much of what you defend can not be factually confirmed, or backed up by data. But once a person truly understands that tapered constructed massive steel buildings can not physically come down by kerosene fires, 3 times in one day, it blows a gigantic hole on your specious conjecture ridden theory.
What we do is the opposite of what you do. We post more scientifically and physically sound theories, complete with calculations that take into consideration available facts, such as the laws of physics, motion, and properties of fire, and steel, and the buildings construction, and the designers statements etc we and even use parts of the reports
that you believe in, to show we have a more valid theory.
All you do is keep on posting shit that we have already shown is very highly unlikely, and MOST likely are lies.

the other thing shit head is this "btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none."ME
in your obsessive zealotry you've either lost the ability to read or you never had it in the first place.
In that statement I never say that in my option " the Bazant hypothesis" is a steaming pile.
what I did say (since you are prone to willful misrepresentation) was that YOU SISTER JONES SHOW ME THE TEST RESULTS THAT PROVE the Bazant hypothesis IS EITHER FACT OR A STEAMING PILE.
YOU as always epically failed.
anyone without misfiring neurons could see that.

You still trying to weasel out of that huge blunder and save face?? LOL!!
Anybody reading that series of posts will come to the same conclusion, that you were asking me to prove the Bazant theory was correct. That you thought of it as just "that," a theory, and then asked me to show you proof that IT WAS NOT a "steaming pile"!
What you also failed miserably at was being man enough to admit that you thought the Bazant theory was something I approved and encouraged, and admit your huge ignorant oversight and move on!

Bottom line you are so fucking ignorant that you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

If you think the NIST theory is credible, then by all means post your validating information and details for all of us to see. You haven't thus far, and appear too stupid to notice.

all of the above except the quotes by me is complete rationalization.
and not fact you make lot of claims that OCT is wrong funny since you have no proof which means you have nothing to substantiate or verify you're lying ever time you say you do.
in other words your backing bullshit with more bullshit.
the only ignorant debater here is you.

 

[Mr. Jones]

two things sister JONES None of what I've posted has been proven false. it's a fantasy you and others like you believe in.

You post the same old things that NIST theorizes, and we post evidence that proves it false. You say what we post does not prove it false, but you always fail to back it up with anything that substantiates your claim that what you are posting is A) True and factual. and B) That what we post is false.

I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.
I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing.
I never claimed anything about space beams you lying fucking asshole.


I laugh at you when you run away from a challenge while claiming to have substantiated your position, when the fact is apparent that you have not.

No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow, but despite me and others asking you concerning this, you never have anything to say about it, except try to turn it around on us, as though we think it perfectly normal for the laws of science, and physics to be altered, or broken, which we do not. Got it now shithead??



No you see, it is what YOU insist is true, IE: the OCT, and the NIST theory that is based on specious conjecture. Much of what you defend can not be factually confirmed, or backed up by data. But once a person truly understands that tapered constructed massive steel buildings can not physically come down by kerosene fires, 3 times in one day, it blows a gigantic hole on your specious conjecture ridden theory.
What we do is the opposite of what you do. We post more scientifically and physically sound theories, complete with calculations that take into consideration available facts, such as the laws of physics, motion, and properties of fire, and steel, and the buildings construction, and the designers statements etc we and even use parts of the reports
that you believe in, to show we have a more valid theory.
All you do is keep on posting shit that we have already shown is very highly unlikely, and MOST likely are lies.

the other thing shit head is this "btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none."ME
in your obsessive zealotry you've either lost the ability to read or you never had it in the first place.
In that statement I never say that in my option " the Bazant hypothesis" is a steaming pile.
what I did say (since you are prone to willful misrepresentation) was that YOU SISTER JONES SHOW ME THE TEST RESULTS THAT PROVE the Bazant hypothesis IS EITHER FACT OR A STEAMING PILE.
YOU as always epically failed.
anyone without misfiring neurons could see that.

You still trying to weasel out of that huge blunder and save face?? LOL!!
Anybody reading that series of posts will come to the same conclusion, that you were asking me to prove the Bazant theory was correct. That you thought of it as just "that," a theory, and then asked me to show you proof that IT WAS NOT a "steaming pile"!
What you also failed miserably at was being man enough to admit that you thought the Bazant theory was something I approved and encouraged, and admit your huge ignorant oversight and move on!

Bottom line you are so fucking ignorant that you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

If you think the NIST theory is credible, then by all means post your validating information and details for all of us to see. You haven't thus far, and appear too stupid to notice.

all of the above except the quotes by me is complete rationalization.
and not fact you make lot of claims that OCT is wrong funny since you have no proof which means you have nothing to substantiate or verify you're lying ever time you say you do.
in other words your backing bullshit with more bullshit.
the only ignorant debater here is you.

So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.
Point out the "bullshit with more bullshit". Go on I'm waiting, or are you still just all talk???

 

[SFC Ollie]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

 

[Mr. Jones]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

Has it ever occurred to you that not every single one of them is required to be a member, nor is a prerequisite to even have to register? This is why your use of those figures can be misleading. Not every single one of them in the US has signed off on the NIST report either.
Again you are choosing to cherry pick what you respond to, leaving out anything that has to do with the NIST lack of evidence that proves their theory..
Just the fact that there are people in the fields that have gone public and even started an organization rejecting NIST should be addressed and not ignored as being insignificant.

 

[daws101]

You post the same old things that NIST theorizes, and we post evidence that proves it false. You say what we post does not prove it false, but you always fail to back it up with anything that substantiates your claim that what you are posting is A) True and factual. and B) That what we post is false.

I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.
I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing.
I never claimed anything about space beams you lying fucking asshole.


I laugh at you when you run away from a challenge while claiming to have substantiated your position, when the fact is apparent that you have not.

No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow, but despite me and others asking you concerning this, you never have anything to say about it, except try to turn it around on us, as though we think it perfectly normal for the laws of science, and physics to be altered, or broken, which we do not. Got it now shithead??



No you see, it is what YOU insist is true, IE: the OCT, and the NIST theory that is based on specious conjecture. Much of what you defend can not be factually confirmed, or backed up by data. But once a person truly understands that tapered constructed massive steel buildings can not physically come down by kerosene fires, 3 times in one day, it blows a gigantic hole on your specious conjecture ridden theory.
What we do is the opposite of what you do. We post more scientifically and physically sound theories, complete with calculations that take into consideration available facts, such as the laws of physics, motion, and properties of fire, and steel, and the buildings construction, and the designers statements etc we and even use parts of the reports
that you believe in, to show we have a more valid theory.
All you do is keep on posting shit that we have already shown is very highly unlikely, and MOST likely are lies.



You still trying to weasel out of that huge blunder and save face?? LOL!!
Anybody reading that series of posts will come to the same conclusion, that you were asking me to prove the Bazant theory was correct. That you thought of it as just "that," a theory, and then asked me to show you proof that IT WAS NOT a "steaming pile"!
What you also failed miserably at was being man enough to admit that you thought the Bazant theory was something I approved and encouraged, and admit your huge ignorant oversight and move on!

Bottom line you are so fucking ignorant that you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

If you think the NIST theory is credible, then by all means post your validating information and details for all of us to see. You haven't thus far, and appear too stupid to notice.

all of the above except the quotes by me is complete rationalization.
and not fact you make lot of claims that OCT is wrong funny since you have no proof which means you have nothing to substantiate or verify you're lying ever time you say you do.
in other words your backing bullshit with more bullshit.
the only ignorant debater here is you.

So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.
Point out the "bullshit with more bullshit". Go on I'm waiting, or are you still just all talk???

bullshit with bullshit.

1.we post evidence that proves it false.

wrong you post non verifiable non credible assumptions..

2. I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.

wrong you post conjecture not facts. since physics is science, the last part of that statement is irrelevant.

3.I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing.

you have no proof that nist was intentionally complicit
you have no evidence they falsified their data.
again what you post is hearsay not fact.
you have no evidence that some group other than the extremist Muslims destroyed the wtc.

4.No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow

totally incorrect, you are assuming facts not in evidence.
now shit head, try to get this right.
the laws of physics were not altered in any way on 911
the towers ,wtc 7 all fell according to the laws of physics.
I did not insist they collapse the way they did, they just did.
in your complete willful ignorance you ignore a basic principle of science "there are no coulds or shoulds in science "
events either happen or they don't.
as to my believing as evidence of anything but belief is just you and you massive ego making false connections.

5. you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

this statement beside being another false assumption is you attempting claim an imagined superiority.
I know exactly what's being discussed and since most all of what you discuss is specious and not fact I check it for validity and it comes up short so, I dismiss it.
the only thing you ever proven is you are convinced that the shit you yammer constantly about is fact
in reality it's not even close .
on the other hand you've proven beyond doubt that you are a pretentious prick with no life.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Written by Richard Gage,

So what? Why not address the issues instead of attacking the messenger, as if the issue is somehow out of bounds because of who delivers it?
The science and physics don't fit the NIST narrative, and we've pointed out how it doesn't, and the best you can do is disparage the messenger?
One what grounds?

 

[daws101]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

Has it ever occurred to you that not every single one of them is required to be a member, nor is a prerequisite to even have to register? This is why your use of those figures can be misleading. Not every single one of them in the US has signed off on the NIST report either.
Again you are choosing to cherry pick what you respond to, leaving out anything that has to do with the NIST lack of evidence that proves their theory..
Just the fact that there are people in the fields that have gone public and even started an organization rejecting NIST should be addressed and not ignored as being insignificant.

but it is ...insignificant that is.

 

[daws101]

Written by Richard Gage,

So what? Why not address the issues instead of attacking the messenger, as if the issue is somehow out of bounds because of who delivers it?
The science and physics don't fit the NIST narrative, and we've pointed out how it doesn't, and the best you can do is disparage the messenger?
One what grounds?

he's wrong
and so are you
please list the physics that don't fit.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

Don't know, don't care...

Go to the doctor and get a prescription for two testicles....have it filled immediately bitch.

Project much?

 

[Mr. Jones]

all of the above except the quotes by me is complete rationalization.
and not fact you make lot of claims that OCT is wrong funny since you have no proof which means you have nothing to substantiate or verify you're lying ever time you say you do.
in other words your backing bullshit with more bullshit.
the only ignorant debater here is you.

So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.
Point out the "bullshit with more bullshit". Go on I'm waiting, or are you still just all talk???

bullshit with bullshit.

1.we post evidence that proves it false.

wrong you post non verifiable non credible assumptions..

2. I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.

wrong you post conjecture not facts. since physics is science, the last part of that statement is irrelevant.

3.I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing.

you have no proof that nist was intentionally complicit
you have no evidence they falsified their data.
again what you post is hearsay not fact.
you have no evidence that some group other than the extremist Muslims destroyed the wtc.

4.No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow

totally incorrect, you are assuming facts not in evidence.
now shit head, try to get this right.
the laws of physics were not altered in any way on 911
the towers ,wtc 7 all fell according to the laws of physics.
I did not insist they collapse the way they did, they just did.
in your complete willful ignorance you ignore a basic principle of science "there are no coulds or shoulds in science "
events either happen or they don't.
as to my believing as evidence of anything but belief is just you and you massive ego making false connections.

5. you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

this statement beside being another false assumption is you attempting claim an imagined superiority.
I know exactly what's being discussed and since most all of what you discuss is specious and not fact I check it for validity and it comes up short so, I dismiss it.
the only thing you ever proven is you are convinced that the shit you yammer constantly about is fact
in reality it's not even close .
on the other hand you've proven beyond doubt that you are a pretentious prick with no life.

So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

I can go back and link to the many times you have pussied out, and made huge fucking idiotic blunders. You can't do the same for my posts asshole LOL!

Don't think your NIST theory is full of specious conjecture? PROVE IT THEN! It should be easy go on try it!!
My opinions are "not even close" to being factual??? OK...PROVE WHERE THEY ARE WRONG...
You say I post conjecture not facts??? Then man up and show your facts that counter my so called "conjecture"..


But you'll probably just say that you already have...right??? Again I'm way ahead of you, you've been running the same scam since you came on board the USMB.
You have no proof that backs up what you say loser!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Written by Richard Gage,

So what? Why not address the issues instead of attacking the messenger, as if the issue is somehow out of bounds because of who delivers it?
The science and physics don't fit the NIST narrative, and we've pointed out how it doesn't, and the best you can do is disparage the messenger?
One what grounds?

he's wrong
and so are you
please list the physics that don't fit.

How is he wrong? List specifics, as your opinion isn't worth 2 shits.
How am I wrong? List specifics, as your opinion isn't worth 2 shits.
Please list the physics that DO fit with NIST theory. Again be specific, as you opinion isn't worth 2 shits and is actually full of specious conjecture, constructed on the false premise regarding kerosene and its effects on construction grade steel, and that collapse was such an imminent conclusion.

In fact we've posted more that substantiates our position then you have about yours!
Why don't you point out how NIST details how their interpretation of the physics involved regarding the buildings DOES ADD UP?

Prove what you say asshole, or can't you?

 

[Mr. Jones]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

Has it ever occurred to you that not every single one of them is required to be a member, nor is a prerequisite to even have to register? This is why your use of those figures can be misleading. Not every single one of them in the US has signed off on the NIST report either.
Again you are choosing to cherry pick what you respond to, leaving out anything that has to do with the NIST lack of evidence that proves their theory..
Just the fact that there are people in the fields that have gone public and even started an organization rejecting NIST should be addressed and not ignored as being insignificant.

but it is ...insignificant that is.

More baseless opinion, with nothing to substantiate it.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Wow all the threads that they were involved in all of a sudden it hits quitting time and they are all gone???

 

[GuyPinestra]

Wow all the threads that they were involved in all of a sudden it hits quitting time and they are all gone???

They'll be back, like dogs to their own vomit...

 

[daws101]

Don't know, don't care...

Go to the doctor and get a prescription for two testicles....have it filled immediately bitch.

Project much?

projecting testicles must be painful ,be thankful you'll never have that problem.