Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[Fizz]

and the proof of your fire did it theory is what ?"

show me where i have a fire theory, you fucking ignorant moron!!

 

[CurveLight]

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "

And all IDeots sees is a computer simulation.

Second Rule of Octavism:

"Citing experts to support the Official version is sufficient but citing experts to question the Official version is unacceptable."

 

[CurveLight]

It was so great watching you take the OCTA'S to school just then and watch them fling shit in defeat.I always get great entertainment out of watching them grasp at straws and make up crap to try and save face in their posts when you point out to them that the philadelphia skyrise fire in 97 or so unlike the twin towers,was lit up like a torch,with huge fireballs everywhere not oxygen starved lacking black smoke because it was so intense and burned 18 hours on end and did not collapse.The OCTA'S cant get around that one.never have been able to.:lol

Thank you, thank you!!

Other than Fairy Tales, shit is all they got!

As soon as they start flinging, you know you got them by the balls.

They got nothing and they know it. It's just hard for some people to accept that their government could lie to and deceive them so badly.

I wonder where that Curvelight person is that accused my of being anit-Semetic for question the Fairy Tale version of 911??

I never said you are anti-Semitic for questioning the official version you dumb fucking anti-Semitic ass zit.

 

[CurveLight]

To suggest that Israel doesn't have an impact on American foreign policy is just beyond the bounds of mental retardation. Half the Obama Administration is jewish or Israeli dual national. Their true loyalties are sometimes questionable based on their actions (see the useless Joe Lieberman for your prime example).

Waiting for the first knuckle dragger to yell "anti-semite" now for telling it the way it is.

What you said was not anti-Semitic. It was fucking backwoods West Virginian outhouse ignorant.

 

[CurveLight]

if the mossad had agents involved it would appear they were invited..I do not believe bush or Cheney are Jewish

No, Cheney and Bush aren't Jewish, but they all belong to the same Zionist club.

Did they actually approve their membership in the Hollybaere Helluva Hilarious Dumbass Division or are they simply honorary members by your arbitrary assignment?

 

[candycorn]

Makes you laugh...does it not?

 

[CurveLight]

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "

And all IDeots sees is a computer simulation.

Speaking of "seeing" something, did you see my post that quoted the CR on the ten second collapse time of the South Tower?

It's funny I was accused of lying by others for pointing out that is what the Report said because after I proved it is in the Report it suddenly became irrelevent. If it didn't matter when dumbasses thought it was a "lie" then why care about it enough to demand a link or make the accusations?

It would take nine seconds for a brick to free fall 1000 feet with absolutely nothing under it and the CR states the South Tower fell in ten seconds. How could it be anything other than a free fall?

One more point about the Towers. OCTAs have a rubber stamp response to the question of comparing other skyscrapers that sustained massive damage without collapsing by citing the unique design of the Towers and that in and of itself renders any comparison invalid. If that is true, why is it valid to compare professionally imploded buildings to the Towers? Does their design suddenly become common? If you cannot compare the Towers to question the Official version then you cannot also compare the Towers to affirm the Official version on the premise there is no way it was blown up because it would require X amount of time, planning, explosives, and execution. That is of course unless one is romantically involved with hypocrisy and has no shame in breathing double standards.

 

[CurveLight]

Makes you laugh...does it not?

I don't have time to laugh right now because the breakfast crowd is jamming my drive-thru window at McDonalds.

 

[hipeter924]

What about the "it doesn't matter what happened because people died" theory?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "

And all IDeots sees is a computer simulation.

Speaking of "seeing" something, did you see my post that quoted the CR on the ten second collapse time of the South Tower?

It's funny I was accused of lying by others for pointing out that is what the Report said because after I proved it is in the Report it suddenly became irrelevent. If it didn't matter when dumbasses thought it was a "lie" then why care about it enough to demand a link or make the accusations?

It would take nine seconds for a brick to free fall 1000 feet with absolutely nothing under it and the CR states the South Tower fell in ten seconds. How could it be anything other than a free fall?

One more point about the Towers. OCTAs have a rubber stamp response to the question of comparing other skyscrapers that sustained massive damage without collapsing by citing the unique design of the Towers and that in and of itself renders any comparison invalid. If that is true, why is it valid to compare professionally imploded buildings to the Towers? Does their design suddenly become common? If you cannot compare the Towers to question the Official version then you cannot also compare the Towers to affirm the Official version on the premise there is no way it was blown up because it would require X amount of time, planning, explosives, and execution. That is of course unless one is romantically involved with hypocrisy and has no shame in breathing double standards.

Yes I saw your post, and I asked about the context of that 10 seconds, I haven't looked it up but my best bet is it was 10 seconds from the beginning of the collapse to the time the first piece of debris hit the ground.

And the comparison of an implosion to that of the collapse of the towers is usually done to show the audio of the controlled demo that is absent at the WTC.

 

[CurveLight]

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "

And all IDeots sees is a computer simulation.

Speaking of "seeing" something, did you see my post that quoted the CR on the ten second collapse time of the South Tower?

It's funny I was accused of lying by others for pointing out that is what the Report said because after I proved it is in the Report it suddenly became irrelevent. If it didn't matter when dumbasses thought it was a "lie" then why care about it enough to demand a link or make the accusations?

It would take nine seconds for a brick to free fall 1000 feet with absolutely nothing under it and the CR states the South Tower fell in ten seconds. How could it be anything other than a free fall?

One more point about the Towers. OCTAs have a rubber stamp response to the question of comparing other skyscrapers that sustained massive damage without collapsing by citing the unique design of the Towers and that in and of itself renders any comparison invalid. If that is true, why is it valid to compare professionally imploded buildings to the Towers? Does their design suddenly become common? If you cannot compare the Towers to question the Official version then you cannot also compare the Towers to affirm the Official version on the premise there is no way it was blown up because it would require X amount of time, planning, explosives, and execution. That is of course unless one is romantically involved with hypocrisy and has no shame in breathing double standards.

Yes I saw your post, and I asked about the context of that 10 seconds, I haven't looked it up but my best bet is it was 10 seconds from the beginning of the collapse to the time the first piece of debris hit the ground.

And the comparison of an implosion to that of the collapse of the towers is usually done to show the audio of the controlled demo that is absent at the WTC.

Are you fucking kidding? I quoted directly from the Report and gave the link and you are still trying to invent context fantasies in the face of the clear statement? Let me help you out some more.


"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a numberof individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower."

So let's see how you fit your "first piece that hit the ground" excuse into the paragraph. The context is fucking clear and you only embarrass yourself by trying to deny what the Report states. In case you didn't know, the MO of OCTAs habitually ignoring obvious facts is one reason why people question the Official version. If the strongest defenders are too timid to address the facts head on it means the conclusion's premise is severely compromised.

Your "audio" dodge on implosion comparison fails for two obvious reasons:

Incindiery devices do not require a loud ass "Bang!" like a grenade or other munitions.

At a professionally planned implosion you generally don't have thousands of rescue vehicles, first responders, and utter chaos of thousands of people trying to stay alive. Do you have any idea how fucking noisy that was? If you took the time to compare the decible ratings you would understand why your "audio" excuse is deaf to reason and common sense.

You're also ignoring the fact there are many first responders who witnessed explosions just prior to the collapse. You reallly wanna try your "normal explosions in an office fire" bullshit again?

 

[parentrap]

control demolition- DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Speaking of "seeing" something, did you see my post that quoted the CR on the ten second collapse time of the South Tower?

It's funny I was accused of lying by others for pointing out that is what the Report said because after I proved it is in the Report it suddenly became irrelevent. If it didn't matter when dumbasses thought it was a "lie" then why care about it enough to demand a link or make the accusations?

It would take nine seconds for a brick to free fall 1000 feet with absolutely nothing under it and the CR states the South Tower fell in ten seconds. How could it be anything other than a free fall?

One more point about the Towers. OCTAs have a rubber stamp response to the question of comparing other skyscrapers that sustained massive damage without collapsing by citing the unique design of the Towers and that in and of itself renders any comparison invalid. If that is true, why is it valid to compare professionally imploded buildings to the Towers? Does their design suddenly become common? If you cannot compare the Towers to question the Official version then you cannot also compare the Towers to affirm the Official version on the premise there is no way it was blown up because it would require X amount of time, planning, explosives, and execution. That is of course unless one is romantically involved with hypocrisy and has no shame in breathing double standards.

Yes I saw your post, and I asked about the context of that 10 seconds, I haven't looked it up but my best bet is it was 10 seconds from the beginning of the collapse to the time the first piece of debris hit the ground.

And the comparison of an implosion to that of the collapse of the towers is usually done to show the audio of the controlled demo that is absent at the WTC.

Are you fucking kidding? I quoted directly from the Report and gave the link and you are still trying to invent context fantasies in the face of the clear statement? Let me help you out some more.


"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a numberof individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower."

So let's see how you fit your "first piece that hit the ground" excuse into the paragraph. The context is fucking clear and you only embarrass yourself by trying to deny what the Report states. In case you didn't know, the MO of OCTAs habitually ignoring obvious facts is one reason why people question the Official version. If the strongest defenders are too timid to address the facts head on it means the conclusion's premise is severely compromised.

Your "audio" dodge on implosion comparison fails for two obvious reasons:

Incindiery devices do not require a loud ass "Bang!" like a grenade or other munitions.

At a professionally planned implosion you generally don't have thousands of rescue vehicles, first responders, and utter chaos of thousands of people trying to stay alive. Do you have any idea how fucking noisy that was? If you took the time to compare the decible ratings you would understand why your "audio" excuse is deaf to reason and common sense.

You're also ignoring the fact there are many first responders who witnessed explosions just prior to the collapse. You reallly wanna try your "normal explosions in an office fire" bullshit again?

OH Bull Shit, I'll have to go re-read that paragraph in the book, but if you are correct here then that is one of the minor details that the 911CR got wrong. I posted a video in this thread that showed the collapse of both towers with the time. 15 seconds and 22 seconds. I still bet it was 10 seconds for the first piece to hit the ground.

And in all that hustle and bustle you would have heard the explosions, and while you are correct in that most incendiary devices do not explode (so to speak) they also do not cut through steel beams sideways.

Yes first responders heard explosions, but not controlled demo explosions. BTW either they were explosionless or not, you can't have it both ways, or maybe you can.

 

[eots]

so nist lied when they said they had NO REPORTS OF EXPLOSIONS ?...and by there own admission if the failure of a a few critical columns could cause the collapse they had to considered explosives..but...there were where no explosions so they looked no further...(there where explosions or there were not you cant have it both ways Ollie or maybe YOU can)

 

[CurveLight]

Yes I saw your post, and I asked about the context of that 10 seconds, I haven't looked it up but my best bet is it was 10 seconds from the beginning of the collapse to the time the first piece of debris hit the ground.

And the comparison of an implosion to that of the collapse of the towers is usually done to show the audio of the controlled demo that is absent at the WTC.

Are you fucking kidding? I quoted directly from the Report and gave the link and you are still trying to invent context fantasies in the face of the clear statement? Let me help you out some more.


"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a numberof individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower."

So let's see how you fit your "first piece that hit the ground" excuse into the paragraph. The context is fucking clear and you only embarrass yourself by trying to deny what the Report states. In case you didn't know, the MO of OCTAs habitually ignoring obvious facts is one reason why people question the Official version. If the strongest defenders are too timid to address the facts head on it means the conclusion's premise is severely compromised.

Your "audio" dodge on implosion comparison fails for two obvious reasons:

Incindiery devices do not require a loud ass "Bang!" like a grenade or other munitions.

At a professionally planned implosion you generally don't have thousands of rescue vehicles, first responders, and utter chaos of thousands of people trying to stay alive. Do you have any idea how fucking noisy that was? If you took the time to compare the decible ratings you would understand why your "audio" excuse is deaf to reason and common sense.

You're also ignoring the fact there are many first responders who witnessed explosions just prior to the collapse. You reallly wanna try your "normal explosions in an office fire" bullshit again?

OH Bull Shit, I'll have to go re-read that paragraph in the book, but if you are correct here then that is one of the minor details that the 911CR got wrong. I posted a video in this thread that showed the collapse of both towers with the time. 15 seconds and 22 seconds. I still bet it was 10 seconds for the first piece to hit the ground.

And in all that hustle and bustle you would have heard the explosions, and while you are correct in that most incendiary devices do not explode (so to speak) they also do not cut through steel beams sideways.

Yes first responders heard explosions, but not controlled demo explosions. BTW either they were explosionless or not, you can't have it both ways, or maybe you can.

I quoted the Report verbatim and you respond with "bullshit?"

The nail in the coffin is you trying to claim the stated collapse time from the 9E Commission Report is a "minor" issue. Whatever shred of respect I had for you has been diveconned into the abyss of jawdropping dishonesty.

Third Rule of Octavism:

"Regardless of the issue, if it is admitted the 9E CR made a factual error it will be excused as minor and inconsequential."

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes a minor error in that they did not explain the time they were talking about.

Once again, a minor error on their part. As we can all see.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed[/ame]

 

[CurveLight]

Yes first responders heard explosions, but not controlled demo explosions. BTW either they were explosionless or not, you can't have it both ways, or maybe you can.

Many first responders specifically described the explosions as sounding like demolitions used on professional implosion charges. But you completely ignore that.

Fourth Rule of Octavism:

"The only valid eyewitness accounts are those that can be used to defend the Official version."

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nope i don't ignore what they said, but I do disagree with what they heard. Because we've all heard the audio. Hours of tape. from many different sources. And not one shows anything like the sounds of a controlled demo.

 

[CurveLight]

Yes a minor error in that they did not explain the time they were talking about.

Once again, a minor error on their part. As we can all see.

YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed

They did explain it by saying in that ten second collapse everyone inside was killed. I know some part of your conscience is slightly knawing at you for this ridiculous display of outright hacking. Vets know each other in a way civilians cannot understand.

 

[eots]

Nope i don't ignore what they said, but I do disagree with what they heard. Because we've all heard the audio. Hours of tape. from many different sources. And not one shows anything like the sounds of a controlled demo.

hours of tape ?..thats not even remotely close to true the collapses lasted seconds and were capture by only a few sources were do you get hours of tape