The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Mr. Jones]

The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report


At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

I'm sorry, but explosives is the 'obvious answer' only to conspiracy theorists. To most people, the obvious answer as to why the towers collapsed is that two planes were flown into the towers, and then massive fires raged afterward. The use of explosives is a not-so-obvious explanation, one that is based on speculation. Your use of the word obvious is in error.

You throw the label of 'conspiracy theorist" around as being derogatory, when you and others are in fact conspiracy theorists. Somehow because you adhere to one that is sanctioned by the state, and is THE "official" conspiracy theory, it is somehow not a conspiracy theory?
Or because it is sanctioned and given the stamp of approval by the state or its agencies,
it is therefore deemed out of bounds or placed beyond the reach of criticism?
Governments and their authoritative figures and politicians have been lying to their citizens forever, but somehow because it is YOUR government or its agents that are doing the lying, this simply can not be?

Despite the fact that there is evidence that it is full of holes (that you call "mistakes") and full of instances that point to fraud, lies and is a highly improbable one that does not make physical sense. Not to mention that this "official" conspiracy theory was admitted to having only a low (impossible) probability of being correct.

Since the evidence gathering and the NIST investigation as a whole, was limited to only finding that which was beneficial to a plane damage and fire only conclusion, of course there would be speculation that other causes were also responsible for such complete, and global destruction of 3 massive skyscrapers, that were destroyed by 2 planes..that displayed many of the same characteristics of CD's.
Coupled with the many glaringly obvious attempts at obfuscation, omission and ignoring of important evidence and witnesses, AND the fact that their own testing rejects their CT, it is only natural that many will conclude that a conspiratorial cover up occurred.

NIST went along with the "19 Jihadists with planes and fire" story. Can you imagine the hurt that would have been put on the years of planning to invade the ME, had NIST actually done an honest, no stone left uncovered investigation, that might have pointed
to other suspects and that the 9-11 attacks were done in collusion with and facilitated by entities other then ACIADUH?

IMO,the NIST report is wrong..and intentionally wrong. I have good reasons for having this opinion that I can substantiate with facts.
NIST has earned the negative criticism they deserve.
There is much historical precedent of past "official" lies and people are waking up to this fact, and any skepticism and doubt that arises in people's minds regarding any "official" government explanations or narratives about anything is to be expected.

 

[Montrovant]

The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report


At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

I'm sorry, but explosives is the 'obvious answer' only to conspiracy theorists. To most people, the obvious answer as to why the towers collapsed is that two planes were flown into the towers, and then massive fires raged afterward. The use of explosives is a not-so-obvious explanation, one that is based on speculation. Your use of the word obvious is in error.

You throw the label of 'conspiracy theorist" around as being derogatory, when you and others are in fact conspiracy theorists. Somehow because you adhere to one that is sanctioned by the state, and is THE "official" conspiracy theory, it is somehow not a conspiracy theory?
Or because it is sanctioned and given the stamp of approval by the state or its agencies,
it is therefore deemed out of bounds or placed beyond the reach of criticism?
Governments and their authoritative figures and politicians have been lying to their citizens forever, but somehow because it is YOUR government or its agents that are doing the lying, this simply can not be?

Despite the fact that there is evidence that it is full of holes (that you call "mistakes") and full of instances that point to fraud, lies and is a highly improbable one that does not make physical sense. Not to mention that this "official" conspiracy theory was admitted to having only a low (impossible) probability of being correct.

Since the evidence gathering and the NIST investigation as a whole, was limited to only finding that which was beneficial to a plane damage and fire only conclusion, of course there would be speculation that other causes were also responsible for such complete, and global destruction of 3 massive skyscrapers, that were destroyed by 2 planes..that displayed many of the same characteristics of CD's.
Coupled with the many glaringly obvious attempts at obfuscation, omission and ignoring of important evidence and witnesses, AND the fact that their own testing rejects their CT, it is only natural that many will conclude that a conspiratorial cover up occurred.

NIST went along with the "19 Jihadists with planes and fire" story. Can you imagine the hurt that would have been put on the years of planning to invade the ME, had NIST actually done an honest, no stone left uncovered investigation, that might have pointed
to other suspects and that the 9-11 attacks were done in collusion with and facilitated by entities other then ACIADUH?

IMO,the NIST report is wrong..and intentionally wrong. I have good reasons for having this opinion that I can substantiate with facts.
NIST has earned the negative criticism they deserve.
There is much historical precedent of past "official" lies and people are waking up to this fact, and any skepticism and doubt that arises in people's minds regarding any "official" government explanations or narratives about anything is to be expected.

None of this in any way changes what I said. For the majority of people I'm pretty sure that the 'obvious answer' as to why the buildings collapsed is that the planes flew into the towers and then the fires burned. That you and a minority of others believe differently does not affect that.

Correct or not, seeing the planes hit the towers, the fires burn, and then the towers collapsing makes that the obvious answer for most people.

 

[daws101]

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

And there's the part that makes the credibility of the whole post come into question. Absolutely nothing you've said in this post, even if it's 100% accurate, leads to that conclusion. The NIST report being wrong does NOT mean 'false flag attack'. All it would mean is that the NIST investigation was wrong. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the planes and fires could not have been responsible for the collapses, it merely means that the NIST investigation was wrong in it's conclusions of how it happened.

That's assuming all of your contentions and statements are correct, which is obviously in question already.

The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report


At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

hey dick head, if it was so obvious why is there no evidence of any kind?
don't say cover up ,as you have no proof of that either.
as always your assumption is based on a false premise.

 

[daws101]

quote=eots;7100801]

How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to prove that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it.
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements) failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.

No known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None. Your speculation about molten steel is still just speculation and your particular agenda ("the Jooos did it") has been exposed. You can't squeeze those worms back into your can, Adolph.

who said it melted it weeks after ?...there would be no evidence of demo rigging and your argument is sooo weak you need to play your joooos card to distract from that fact[/QUOTE]bullshit....yes there would be, everything especially explosives leaves traceable evidence, none was found. again that leads back to your false and unprovable fantasy cover up.

 

[daws101]

the statements are correct and the nist report is without question incorrect in its findings ..the purpose of the nist report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in nist opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final nist report


at a press briefing, shyam sunder, nist’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of world trade center 7 is no longer a mystery.”but before i tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down”

which couldn't possibly just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh?
Had they said nothing about explosives you would have considered that to be "proof" it was a cd. To one such as you everything (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular ct.

they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie

13. 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.
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation


the sound you are referring to are from the berry Jennings story.
there is no evidence linking what he heard to the collapse.
if his story is fact, then what he heard was the aftermath of the debris falling, on 7 in which it would be expected that loud sounds would be heard..
explosions are not always the result of explosives.

 

[eots]

which couldn't possibly just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh?
Had they said nothing about explosives you would have considered that to be "proof" it was a cd. To one such as you everything (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular ct.

they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie

13. 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.
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

but yet NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?

the sound you are referring to are from the berry Jennings story.

and several others

there is no evidence linking what he heard to the collapse.
if his story is fact, then what he heard was the aftermath of the debris falling, on 7 in which it would be expected that loud sounds would be heard..
explosions are not always the result of explosives.

but NIST claimed no explosions where heard or reported ?

 

[SAYIT]

13. 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.
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

but yet NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?

and several others

there is no evidence linking what he heard to the collapse.
if his story is fact, then what he heard was the aftermath of the debris falling, on 7 in which it would be expected that loud sounds would be heard..
explosions are not always the result of explosives.

but NIST claimed no explosions where heard or reported ?

You apply the same "proof" of your CD CT as you do to your claim that Anderson Cooper is a CIA agent ... none at all.

 

[daws101]

13. 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.
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

but yet NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?



and several others

there is no evidence linking what he heard to the collapse.
if his story is fact, then what he heard was the aftermath of the debris falling, on 7 in which it would be expected that loud sounds would be heard..
explosions are not always the result of explosives.

but NIST claimed no explosions where heard or reported ?

but yet NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?- eots
AND? HOW does this prove the use of explosives? it does not. your lack of reasoning is astounding.

but NIST claimed no explosions where heard or reported- eots
now your just lying. "no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses"-nist


the important part:"during the collapse"
what Barry Jennings "heard" was SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE..
if it had been written this way: no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video tapes or reported by witnesses during the collapse,
would you still be making this ridiculous argument?
it's an epically failing attempt at semantics or you really don't know how to read.

 

[eots]

but yet NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?



and several others


but NIST claimed no explosions where heard or reported ?

but yet NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?- eots
AND? HOW does this prove the use of explosives? it does not. your lack of reasoning is astounding.

but NIST claimed no explosions where heard or reported- eots
now your just lying. "no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses"-nist


the important part:"during the collapse"
what Barry Jennings "heard" was SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE..
if it had been written this way: no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video tapes or reported by witnesses during the collapse,
would you still be making this ridiculous argument?
it's an epically failing attempt at semantics or you really don't know how to read.

having troubles with the incredibly easy quote function again ?

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4z-Wrp1pY8]Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder: Building 7 Countdown, Explosions, Controlled Demolition - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8]9/11: Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

but yet NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?- eots
AND? HOW does this prove the use of explosives? it does not. your lack of reasoning is astounding.

but NIST claimed no explosions where heard or reported- eots
now your just lying. "no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses"-nist


the important part:"during the collapse"
what Barry Jennings "heard" was SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE THE COLLAPSE..
if it had been written this way: no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video tapes or reported by witnesses during the collapse,
would you still be making this ridiculous argument?
it's an epically failing attempt at semantics or you really don't know how to read.

having troubles with the incredibly easy quote function again ?

another scathing fact filled refutation of my post! hahahahahahahahahah!

 

[daws101]

Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder: Building 7 Countdown, Explosions, Controlled Demolition - YouTube

hearsay not evidence!

 

[daws101]

9/11: Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up - YouTube

(David Chandler and Jon Cole) are associated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. AE911Truth.
again hearsay, specious speculating, false premise, non credible organization.

 

[eots]

9/11: Sound evidence for wtc 7 explosions and nist cover up - youtube

(david chandler and jon cole) are associated with architects & engineers for 9/11 truth. Ae911truth.
Again hearsay, specious speculating, false premise, non credible organization.

its a compilation of first responder eye-witnesses testimony dipshit

 

[daws101]

9/11: Sound evidence for wtc 7 explosions and nist cover up - youtube

(david chandler and jon cole) are associated with architects & engineers for 9/11 truth. Ae911truth.
Again hearsay, specious speculating, false premise, non credible organization.

its a compilation of first responder eye-witnesses testimony dipshit

and it has no credibility..

 

[eots]

(david chandler and jon cole) are associated with architects & engineers for 9/11 truth. Ae911truth.
Again hearsay, specious speculating, false premise, non credible organization.

its a compilation of first responder eye-witnesses testimony dipshit

and it has no credibility..

it is only in your delusional world that first responders who witnessed the events have no credibility...

 

[gslack]

I can show 100 people of your choosing, a video of something complex and I will get differing opinions from virtually all of them.. Are they all crazy or lying? No, they just perceive the events differently. Same goes for educated people investigating something they already have doubts about in the first place....

 

[daws101]

I can show 100 people of your choosing, a video of something complex and I will get differing opinions from virtually all of them.. Are they all crazy or lying? No, they just perceive the events differently. Same goes for educated people investigating something they already have doubts about in the first place....

bump

 

[E.L.C.]

Hey guys....

Great thread, I've read it twice.... what a fight! I just love all these conspiracy theorists. Great story, and they tell it with such enthusiasm, as if they actually have the facts behind them.... hilarious!