WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[Liability]

the Crime itself ..the omissions and admitted failure of the commission and NIST is all the justification required

its not my reluctance alone but that of the majority of commission members and ex-director of NIST..it is illogical to give credibility to a report if the participants find it not to be credible





it was clearly a crime..hijacking and murder are crimes and warrant a criminal investigation




this statement is true of NIST and the commission..who have a far greater burden and responsibility than I

Since you cannot identify ANY military super top secret new explosive which can account for a building's implosion without the need for wiring of detonator cord and all that it entails, that whacky sci-fi speculation in support of your still unsupported and illogical theory does not suffice to support your theory on even the most basic of preliminary levels.

and nothing in the report explains molten metal and free fall collapse

You STILL need to learn how to use the quote function. Unless you are doing this intentionally to obscure the glaring deficiencies in all the blather you are spewing.

I repeat. I don't give a shit if you find the "report" illogical or not. That is an opinion only and of no importance to me. That others may share your opinion is of pretty much the same interest. It still doesn't matter.

To OBTAIN, as you desire, some new or re-opened "investigation" would STILL require a reasonable basis to claim that a "crime" has been committed. You have none.

On that latter topic, your reiteration of your empty opinion is beside the point. Lots of behavior by the enemy in war would qualify -- in non-war times frames -- as "criminal." But their actions still don't actually meet the definition of "crime." They committed acts of war. You are bootstrapping their acts of war onto your irrational claim that the buildings were taken down by OTHER means. Thus, YOUR actual claim is a claim that a crime was committed. It is THAT which, therefore, requires a rational basis to justify an "investigation." And you have yet to offer any such rational basis.

Where were the MILES AND MILES the detonator cord? How come none of it was seen? Why did nobody balk at going into either of the towers or the building 7 on 9/11/2001? Why dd nobody report it at all, but all of them went to work, instead? How many people would (minimally) have HAD to have been involved to commit the crime contemplated in your claimed conspiracy? When did they get the planting of ALL of that the invisible super-secret miltary sci-fi explosives accomplished all without being seen by anybody?

 

[eots]

it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder

 

[DiveCon]

it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder

source for that claim?
i know SOME do, but not for the reasons you want to think

 

[Liability]

it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder

Both of these so-called points of yours have already been made by you and have already been addressed. Repeating a failed point, as you just did, does nothing to further your argument.

I don't CARE that you and others (with or without the semblence of officialdom) "believe" that the report is invalid.

And no. An act of war by an enemy is an act of war, not a crime. BESIDES WHICH, I have to remind you yet again, what we know THEY did is NOT the topic. The TOPIC is YOUR unsupported contention that some Americans engaged in a massive conspiracy to commit mass murder and destroy major pieces of property, to the harm of the entire national and world economies, by deliberately causing the destruction of inhabited skyscrapers in NYC. THOSE would be crimes.

To support your request or demand for some new investigation or re-opening of the prior investigation (sith or without subpoena power) STILL would require the articulation of some REASONABLE basis that might warrant this kind of investigation.

Since you remain unable and unwilling to even attempt to offer ANY answer to the unavoidable questions your "theory" immediately raises, it is perfectly established that you are NOT able to support your conspiracy/crime contention by way of any REASONABLE BASIS.

You just dodged a few of the questions yet again.

I have pointed out before when you have dodged those question.

Why do you imagine that repeating your already refuted pointlesses will help you out any better after that?

 

[eots]

[

quote=Liability;1512182]

it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder

Both of these so-called points of yours have already been made by you and have already been addressed. Repeating a failed point, as you just did, does nothing to further your argument.

I don't CARE that you and others (with or without the semblence of officialdom) "believe" that the report is invalid.

And no. An act of war by an enemy is an act of war, not a crime. BESIDES WHICH, I have to remind you yet again, what we know THEY did is NOT the topic. The TOPIC is YOUR unsupported contention that some Americans engaged in a massive conspiracy to commit mass murder and destroy major pieces of property, to the harm of the entire national and world economies, by deliberately causing the destruction of inhabited skyscrapers in NYC. THOSE would be crimes.

To support your request or demand for some new investigation or re-opening of the prior investigation (sith or without subpoena power) STILL would require the articulation of some REASONABLE basis that might warrant this kind of investigation.

Since you remain unable and unwilling to even attempt to offer ANY answer to the unavoidable questions your "theory" immediately raises, it is perfectly established that you are NOT able to support your conspiracy/crime contention by way of any REASONABLE BASIS.

You just dodged a few of the questions yet again.

I have pointed out before when you have dodged those question.

Why do you imagine that repeating your already refuted pointlesses will help you out any better after that?

you should be asking yourself this question...because you point something out does not mean you have a point...your the one dodging the fact that NIST AND THE 911 COMMISION have not provided adequate answers for the crimes that occurred on 9/11..all I can offer is theory's it would require a real investigation with subpoena powers..like any criminal trial to prove the case

 

[Liability]

[

quote=Liability;1512182]

it is the opinion of the majority of the 9/11 commission and ex -directors of NIST that the official story is not credible and the findings of NIST questionable to simply ignore this fact and support the findings is illogical...and in your esoteric ramble you can call it an act of war but in reality and legally it was a crime of hijacking and murder

Both of these so-called points of yours have already been made by you and have already been addressed. Repeating a failed point, as you just did, does nothing to further your argument.

I don't CARE that you and others (with or without the semblence of officialdom) "believe" that the report is invalid.

And no. An act of war by an enemy is an act of war, not a crime. BESIDES WHICH, I have to remind you yet again, what we know THEY did is NOT the topic. The TOPIC is YOUR unsupported contention that some Americans engaged in a massive conspiracy to commit mass murder and destroy major pieces of property, to the harm of the entire national and world economies, by deliberately causing the destruction of inhabited skyscrapers in NYC. THOSE would be crimes.

To support your request or demand for some new investigation or re-opening of the prior investigation (sith or without subpoena power) STILL would require the articulation of some REASONABLE basis that might warrant this kind of investigation.

Since you remain unable and unwilling to even attempt to offer ANY answer to the unavoidable questions your "theory" immediately raises, it is perfectly established that you are NOT able to support your conspiracy/crime contention by way of any REASONABLE BASIS.

You just dodged a few of the questions yet again.

I have pointed out before when you have dodged those question.

Why do you imagine that repeating your already refuted pointlesses will help you out any better after that?

you should be asking yourself this question...because you point something out does not mean you have a point...your the one dodging the fact that NIST AND THE 911 COMMISION have not provided adequate answers for the crimes that occurred on 9/11..all I can offer is theory's it would require a real investigation with subpoena powers..like any criminal trial to prove the case

Another ducking of the question. Typical behavior of id-eots.

Try to justify your request for a new or a re-opened investigation.

Try to focus on addressing the obvious questions of who planted the explosives, laid all the wiring, where, when and how -- all without being noticed.

Until you can do that and do it in a rational coherent manner, you remain a braying jackass. Nothing more.

 

[eots]

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required

 

[Si modo]

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required

Purdue Engineers are in on it with the NIST engineers. It's a sure sign of an engineer conspiracy.

WTC I Engineering Perspective

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

 

[eots]

the ex-director of NIST has called for a new investigation and calls NIST report questionable and expressed frustration that the government was not forthcoming with information.....computer simulations with tweaked data is the only place NIST data can be recreated

 

[Terral]

Hi Lia:

yet nothing you just reiterated answers the actual questions which you clearly feel the need to duck.

Asking a billion questions makes a case for NOTHING. Try again when you 'do' have evidence to support the Official Cover Story. The problem is that you do not know enough about what really happened on 9/11 to even begin drafting a good argument, so the USMB inherited yet another chat monkey . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[DiveCon]

Hi Lia:

yet nothing you just reiterated answers the actual questions which you clearly feel the need to duck.

Asking a billion questions makes a case for NOTHING. Try again when you 'do' have evidence to support the Official Cover Story. The problem is that you do not know enough about what really happened on 9/11 to even begin drafting a good argument, so the USMB inherited yet another chat monkey . . .





GL,

Terral

you're such a schmuck

 

[DiveCon]

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required

Purdue Engineers are in on it with the NIST engineers. It's a sure sign of an engineer conspiracy.

WTC I Engineering Perspective

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

clearly they MUST be part of the conspiracy

 

[Liability]

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required

Completely wrong and rather imbecilic of you.

YOU seek a new or renewed "investigation." The BURDEN remains on you to justify it.

That the prior report leaves you unsatisfied is not a valid justification.

YOU are claiming that conspirators actually perpetrated a massive crime, rather than allowing for the prospect that terrorists conductied atrocities which caused the destruction.

IF conspirators had actually been involved in the fantasy-crime, and going with your ridiculous assumption that the buildings collapsed due to some planting of explosives to create a controlled implosion-type demolition, you ARE in fact obligated to answer some starkly obvious questions.

It is beyond absurd to believe that anybody or any set of individuals could possibly have planted explosives with some kind of timed triggers at all of the absolutely required spots of the physical strutures, at all, much less that they could have done so in some indeterminate but clearly very short time period ALL without anybody noticing.

Since you cannot address the obvious physical impossibility of what your stupid theory REQUIRES to have happened in order for you theory to have had any chance of being what happened, you completely FAIL to provide any rational, coherent or even possible basis to justify your moronic request for a new or renewed investigation.

The implications of what you are suggesting REQUIRE that certain things MUST have taken place. Yet there is NO evidence of such things whatsoever. None.

Repeating your conjecture about faulty analysis or whatever remains irrelevant. You cannot point to ANYTHING in the real world that supports HOW you claim it happened.

Thus, you fail. End of story.

 

[Si modo]

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required

Purdue Engineers are in on it with the NIST engineers. It's a sure sign of an engineer conspiracy.

WTC I Engineering Perspective

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

clearly they MUST be part of the conspiracy

Well, the engineers from NIST and Purdue are using the same engineering terminology. Even a man-on-the-street that day used the terms structural strength and fire/high temperatures when describing the collapse moments before. You do the math. Doesn't that scream conspiracy?

 

[eots]

[QU

OTE=Liability;1513530]

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required

Completely wrong and rather imbecilic of you.

YOU seek a new or renewed "investigation." The BURDEN remains on you to justify it.

the burden was on the 9/11 commission who by their own admission failed...imbecile
their failure is all the justification required

That the prior report leaves you unsatisfied is not a valid justification.

the fact it leaves the commision itself and lead NIST investigators is however

YOU are claiming that conspirators actually perpetrated a massive crime, rather than allowing for the prospect that terrorists conductied atrocities which caused the destruction.

IF conspirators had actually been involved in the fantasy-crime, and going with your ridiculous assumption that the buildings collapsed due to some planting of explosives to create a controlled implosion-type demolition, you ARE in fact obligated to answer some starkly obvious questions.

that burden was on NIST and the commission to explain the collapse and prove their theory's and they failed to answer the questions...
to prove the controlled demolition theory or any other theory requires a real criminal investigation with subpoena power

It is beyond absurd to believe that anybody or any set of individuals could possibly have planted explosives with some kind of timed triggers at all of the absolutely required spots of the physical strutures, at all, much less that they could have done so in some indeterminate but clearly very short time period ALL without anybody noticing.

that is only your personal opinion..nothing more

Since you cannot address the obvious physical impossibility of what your stupid theory REQUIRES to have happened in order for you theory to have had any chance of being what happened, you completely FAIL to provide any rational, coherent or even possible basis to justify your moronic request for a new or renewed investigation.

The implications of what you are suggesting REQUIRE that certain things MUST have taken place. Yet there is NO evidence of such things whatsoever. None.

Repeating your conjecture about faulty analysis or whatever remains irrelevant. You cannot point to ANYTHING in the real world that supports HOW you claim it happened.

Thus, you fail. End of story.

free fall collapse and molten metal have never been explained...and there is evidence..
the official story..has not provided the proof of its theory...

 

[Liability]

[QU

OTE=Liability;1513530]

knowing the exact methods of how the demolition occurred is not the required justification for a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11...the failure of the commission to answer the questions and the omission of building 7 is the only justification required

Completely wrong and rather imbecilic of you.

YOU seek a new or renewed "investigation." The BURDEN remains on you to justify it.

the burden was on the 9/11 commission who by their own admission failed...imbecile
their failure is all the justification required

As always, that's a lame-ass deflection and you're wrong in any event. The Commission wanted to know what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. They discovered what we already knew. What happened was jetliners full of passengers and fuel crashed into the two main towers causing uncontrollable fires that resulted in structural collapses.

That still has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your unsupportably stupid and quite vile contention that American conspirators were part of some criminal plot to kill Americans and take down our financial sector. The conspiracy you propose is flatly impossible. That's why you persist in ducking the questions.

The burden does not shift.

It is completely yours and you are utterly unable to meet that burden.

Everything else you say on this topic has been, is and remains completely meaningless until and unless you step up to the plate, honestly address and meet that burden. But you can't do it.

 

[eots]

we found out what we already knew ?...who is we ?...how did we know this ?...what source did we get this knowing from ?

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ri1i6nAGOE&feature=PlayList&p=2BC3BE1853C2165A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4]YouTube - 9/11 - Condoleezza Rice at the 911 commision[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9AoaU7LlTk]YouTube - Bush Questioned about 9/11 Commission[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I]YouTube - Bush talks about EXPLOSIVES in building (on 9/11?)[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXglJU2w6U&feature=PlayList&p=A6431C0DFB2EFD5C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15]YouTube - On 9/11, Bush watched the first plane impact[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSwtR8b4WCE]YouTube - Bush Reaction When Accused Of Prior Knowledge Of 9/11[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY&feature=PlayList&p=FA8D7A017C97B1CC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=31]YouTube - 9/11 Truth: NIST engineer denies molten steel at Ground Zero[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTp77iDM_As[/ame]

 

[Liability]

we found out what we already knew ?...who is we ?...how did we know this ?...what source did we get this knowing from ?

WHO? ??? The entire world. The planes were observed. They weren't the magic Wonder Woman invisible planes. They were real world passenger jet-liners.

The second passenger jet, in particular, got viewed by horrified witnesses on television as it happened. (The first one WAS observed by fewer live witnesses, but it did get captured on video all the same.)

Now, YOU make the unproved and irrational claim that the buildings didn't really come down because of all that. No no no. According to you and your imbecile ilk , the "real truth" is that those building fell because somebody (domestic conspirators in ora ligned with OUR government) had planted explosives at God knows how many secret but crucial locations within the two towers and building 7, wired them (unless some science-fiction brand version of military explosives that didn't require wiring somehow got planted instead with timing mechanisms or radio controlled detonators) ALL without anybody noticing the work or the other surrounding evidence of such an enormous effort, and then detonated them (timed to coordinate, apparently, with the acts of the al qaeda terrorist efforts -- so our home grown conspirators had to have been IN ON IT somehow with al qaeda!).

Yeah. You have a highly realistic vision. Very persausive.

9/11 Troofers are one sick-ass, depraved, stupid lot of irrational motherfuckers.