yep no controlled demolition of bld 7 or lost libertys since 9/11 alright

[SAYIT]

"'I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas.' Henry Kissinger, 2000.

"'September Eleven was good for Israel'" (Benjamin Netanyahu)"

Can you spot the pattern?

Who Destroyed The WTC?

Both obvious truths. Your point?

"Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman Sachs partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the Lessor. Larry Silverstein, New York developer and friend of Netanyahu (every Sunday Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the Lessee."

Still confused?

Who Destroyed The WTC?

That's it? That's your evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demo? No wonder the insurers aren't asking you to help them get their BILLIONS back. You're lame and perhaps just a bigot.

 

[SAYIT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand...

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
Fantastic! Nobody knows because - drum roll, please - nobody knows!
How convenient!
I certainly can't compete with such powerful logic! Just for my records, could you post a credible link which supports your "facts," Princess?

You apparently can't compete, that's obvious, and what you try to pass off as logic, that being that the OCT is true and legit, beecausse insurance fraud took place, is just the latest and weakest attempt at sidetracking a topic, avoiding direct confrontation regarding a subject you don't want to face, and filling it full of BS.

I see you still are avoiding what I challenged you to respond to...You're still a weak coward and weaker example of internet disinformation troll, and BTW asshole, I have posted credible links, and easy to understand videos that explain my stance on this topic, but it looks like you're still playing dumb, which is one of the more easily spotted of tactics you trolls use.
Folks what this person is displaying is straight up disinformation internet troll tactics.

I assume you're stupidity and lack of knowledge on this topic is due to you probably still being in training...Come on now get to studying, and don't be afraid to raise your hand during follow up orientation sessions.....Shit...maybe they need a new instructor

You are an epic fail, keep looking for work or troll another topic....

Soooo, you admit you have nothing which supports your "facts" except those little voices in your toaster. You're dismissed, Princess.

Facts that substantiate my position on this topic have been posted, with easily understood videos, but again you are now back to playing dumb...It's all a circular game to fucks like you....Why don't you post in your own words why you think the WTC really were destroyed by planes and fire? Feel free to post links/videos... what ever you want.
You've already failed to convince anybody that the OCT is true and legit because insurance fraud was successful...what do you have to lose?

Hey C'mon man, I'm actually helping you try to keep yourself employed, and me entertained at the same time

More lame deflection. C'mon, Princess ... surely you have credible sources which support your conclusions. Just post 'em so we can all get a good laugh. FTR, I'm on your side. When you get your case together I'll approach the insurers, who would love to get their BILLIONS back, and negotiate a 10% recovery fee on your behalf. Of course, I require a modest 20% agent's fee but that still leaves you with lots of money so quit wasting our time and get busy! Thanks.

 

[SAYIT]

I would say it is unreasonable unless there is some sort of evidence pointing to the use of nuclear weapons. I have heard of nothing, either from the government or the 9/11 truthers, that would indicate some sort of small nuke was used. I also can't think of a reason to do so as opposed to more conventional explosives, or even unconventional but non-nuclear ones. Is it even possible to have a nuke small enough that the explosion wouldn't be noticed? Would a nuke of any size leave enough radioactive residue to be easily detected, making discovery by the conspirators easier?

It just appears you are giving this more credence than warranted based on what you've said. That, in turn, speaks to your possible willingness to give credence to any theory that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy, whatever the evidence or logic of the argument.

You're ignoring what I posted about my stance on the mini nuke subject is, but I'll repeat,
That I am going to look into it, as I generally do with most things and see were that road ends, and especially who is putting this "out there".
BTW, you are wasting your time if you're waiting to hear anything about this from the Gov.
This is a hands off career ending topic, we all know this by now.

I may not have been clear in my point.

It's not that I need the government to tell me why a nuke is or isn't possible in the fall of the towers.

It's just that I have never before heard anyone say anything that would indicate the use of a nuclear device. Not the government, not the people who believe it was a conspiracy, no engineers or nuclear weapons specialists or first responders or victims, no one.

Now, that doesn't automatically make the idea incorrect. Unless I can see a reason to think a nuke was used, though, I think it is an UNreasonable idea. I could say that the British government was behind 9/11; it might be possible, but unless I also provide some sort of reason for it, it starts out as an unreasonable theory.

Payback for the American Revolution, obviously.

 

[SAYIT]

Using the term "US government" is highly misleading, as it would not entail the entire US government to carry out a false flag attack, but only requires a handful of strategically placed individuals to call the shots, as is what appeared to have happened on 9-11.
The theory of mini nukes is one I am going to be looking into with interest to see what these people who posit this are saying and what they have to substantiate such a theory.

At this time one can not tell if it is a reasonable theory , or just another disinformation tactic to muddy the waters and make any search for the truth, look like a "kook" movement instead of a legitimate search for the truth about the 9-11 attacks.
One thing is for sure, and that is that the WTC could not have been destroyed or explained the way NIST has said.

I would say it is unreasonable unless there is some sort of evidence pointing to the use of nuclear weapons. I have heard of nothing, either from the government or the 9/11 truthers, that would indicate some sort of small nuke was used. I also can't think of a reason to do so as opposed to more conventional explosives, or even unconventional but non-nuclear ones. Is it even possible to have a nuke small enough that the explosion wouldn't be noticed? Would a nuke of any size leave enough radioactive residue to be easily detected, making discovery by the conspirators easier?

It just appears you are giving this more credence than warranted based on what you've said. That, in turn, speaks to your possible willingness to give credence to any theory that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy, whatever the evidence or logic of the argument.

Did you mean "willingness" or "eagerness?"

 

[Mr. Jones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand...

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
Fantastic! Nobody knows because - drum roll, please - nobody knows!
How convenient!
I certainly can't compete with such powerful logic! Just for my records, could you post a credible link which supports your "facts," Princess?

Soooo, you admit you have nothing which supports your "facts" except those little voices in your toaster. You're dismissed, Princess.

Facts that substantiate my position on this topic have been posted, with easily understood videos, but again you are now back to playing dumb...It's all a circular game to fucks like you....Why don't you post in your own words why you think the WTC really were destroyed by planes and fire? Feel free to post links/videos... what ever you want.
You've already failed to convince anybody that the OCT is true and legit because insurance fraud was successful...what do you have to lose?

Hey C'mon man, I'm actually helping you try to keep yourself employed, and me entertained at the same time

More lame deflection. C'mon, Princess ... surely you have credible sources which support your conclusions. Just post 'em so we can all get a good laugh. FTR, I'm on your side. When you get your case together I'll approach the insurers, who would love to get their BILLIONS back, and negotiate a 10% recovery fee on your behalf. Of course, I require a modest 20% agent's fee but that still leaves you with lots of money so quit wasting out time and get busy! Thanks.

Oh man you're funny and entertaining while you yourself initiate deflection tactics, and avoid what has been said and posted.


C'mon now all we want is for you to explain how it is possible for the WTC exploding and being destroyed the way NIST has said they were
while circumventing science and laws of physics is really really true because Silverstein managed a brilliant insurance scam....We've been waiting for any logical and reasonable response for a long time now....It looks like it is you little Sayit....yes it is you who is avoiding and deflecting the issue by bringing up the WTC insurance issue....That does not explain what was asked...tsk tsk...Now I've been more then fair and patient...you've had plenty of time to come up with something....I, in good faith have explained my stance, with links, videos and you just ignore it as if they don't exist.....I'm trying to play fair ...but you aren't....You've lost the debate and your credibility......the more you
the worse off you appear to all the others on the thread.....


Why haven't you commented on the article about the WTC, the insurance, the litigation, lawyers, and the federal judges involved????
I've posted this regarding your questions, and you don't even acknowledge them....poor me, I feel so sad that you ignore this stuff, I really wanted to play along....and toast your ass some more....Oh well, you lose no bonus points for you today...let's allow for some super bowl distraction shall we? Maybe there will be event there? Or a super bowl gate or something like that to distract the masses?

It's been a slice and I've enjoyed ripping your ass apart while you scamper around like a twit....or twat...whatever take your pick....or have both as your label...after all....you've earned them..

 

[georgephillip]

Both obvious truths. Your point?

"Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman Sachs partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the Lessor. Larry Silverstein, New York developer and friend of Netanyahu (every Sunday Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the Lessee."

Still confused?

Who Destroyed The WTC?

That's it? That's your evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demo? No wonder the insurers aren't asking you to help them get their BILLIONS back. You're lame and perhaps just a bigot.

That's my evidence of two obvious truths.
Why do you find it difficult to stay on topic?

 

[SAYIT]

Why are you here?

He or she is a warped Sock Troll asshole. The Sock really feels compelled to loiter here 24/7 pushing Government Propaganda. This is its latest Sock creation. But there will be more to follow. At first we all just assumed he or she was a paid Big Brother Troll, but now we realize it's just a demented stooge. I mean, i could understand getting paid to be such a stooge. But doing it for free is just plain bizarre. But hey, waddayagonnado, right?

That is the typically lame defense of a typically lame CT. All who refute their silliness can only be mindless sheeple or gov't paid trolls. It isn't possible, according to these shrill and desperate morons, that their silliness is just plain silly.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I would say it is unreasonable unless there is some sort of evidence pointing to the use of nuclear weapons. I have heard of nothing, either from the government or the 9/11 truthers, that would indicate some sort of small nuke was used. I also can't think of a reason to do so as opposed to more conventional explosives, or even unconventional but non-nuclear ones. Is it even possible to have a nuke small enough that the explosion wouldn't be noticed? Would a nuke of any size leave enough radioactive residue to be easily detected, making discovery by the conspirators easier?

It just appears you are giving this more credence than warranted based on what you've said. That, in turn, speaks to your possible willingness to give credence to any theory that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy, whatever the evidence or logic of the argument.

You're ignoring what I posted about my stance on the mini nuke subject is, but I'll repeat,
That I am going to look into it, as I generally do with most things and see were that road ends, and especially who is putting this "out there".
BTW, you are wasting your time if you're waiting to hear anything about this from the Gov.
This is a hands off career ending topic, we all know this by now.

I may not have been clear in my point.

It's not that I need the government to tell me why a nuke is or isn't possible in the fall of the towers.

It's just that I have never before heard anyone say anything that would indicate the use of a nuclear device. Not the government, not the people who believe it was a conspiracy, no engineers or nuclear weapons specialists or first responders or victims, no one.

Now, that doesn't automatically make the idea incorrect. Unless I can see a reason to think a nuke was used, though, I think it is an UNreasonable idea. I could say that the British government was behind 9/11; it might be possible, but unless I also provide some sort of reason for it, it starts out as an unreasonable theory.

Maybe what you have heard gives you reason to believe it might be true. I am only going by the little you have said about it. It's really not a very important point I was trying to make anyway, so I probably shouldn't harp on it like this.

I can appreciate your point, and I tried to explain that I don't subscribe to anything that is said by either side of the issue without first looking into it, and where the source comes from, and what if any credibility and proof they have. There is a vast amount of BS information and theories planted to make the honest people look illegitimate and kooky.
The mini nuke thing may be another one of them.
I am firm in my belief that the WTC was not destroyed by planes and kerosene tho, and that there was out side and inside collaboration.
The poster you are defending is adamant that the OCT is true because an insurance fraud scheme was successful is just looney tunes material.

 

[SAYIT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand...

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
Fantastic! Nobody knows because - drum roll, please - nobody knows!
How convenient!
I certainly can't compete with such powerful logic! Just for my records, could you post a credible link which supports your "facts," Princess?

Facts that substantiate my position on this topic have been posted, with easily understood videos, but again you are now back to playing dumb...It's all a circular game to fucks like you....Why don't you post in your own words why you think the WTC really were destroyed by planes and fire? Feel free to post links/videos... what ever you want.
You've already failed to convince anybody that the OCT is true and legit because insurance fraud was successful...what do you have to lose?

Hey C'mon man, I'm actually helping you try to keep yourself employed, and me entertained at the same time

More lame deflection. C'mon, Princess ... surely you have credible sources which support your conclusions. Just post 'em so we can all get a good laugh. FTR, I'm on your side. When you get your case together I'll approach the insurers, who would love to get their BILLIONS back, and negotiate a 10% recovery fee on your behalf. Of course, I require a modest 20% agent's fee but that still leaves you with lots of money so quit wasting out time and get busy! Thanks.

Oh man you're funny and entertaining while you yourself initiate deflection tactics, and avoid what has been said and posted.


C'mon now all we want is for you to explain how it is possible for the WTC exploding and being destroyed the way NIST has said they were
while circumventing science and laws of physics is really really true because Silverstein managed a brilliant insurance scam....We've been waiting for any logical and reasonable response for a long time now....It looks like it is you little Sayit....yes it is you who is avoiding and deflecting the issue by bringing up the WTC insurance issue....That does not explain what was asked...tsk tsk...Now I've been more then fair and patient...you've had plenty of time to come up with something....I, in good faith have explained my stance, with links, videos and you just ignore it as if they don't exist.....I'm trying to play fair ...but you aren't....You've lost the debate and your credibility......the more you
the worse off you appear to all the others on the thread.....


Why haven't you commented on the article about the WTC, the insurance, the litigation, lawyers, and the federal judges involved????
I've posted this regarding your questions, and you don't even acknowledge them....poor me, I feel so sad that you ignore this stuff, I really wanted to play along....and toast your ass some more....Oh well, you lose no bonus points for you today...let's allow for some super bowl distraction shall we? Maybe there will be event there? Or a super bowl gate or something like that to distract the masses?

It's been a slice and I've enjoyed ripping your ass apart while you scamper around like a twit....or twat...whatever take your pick....or have both as your label...after all....you've earned them..

Listen up, terminally Dense One. It isn't me who has to prove anything. I don't believe we have a viable case but if you do, put your money where your mouth is. Quit trolling these obscure message boards, put away your Star Trek action figures, hang up your foil hat and get busy building our case. Just think, with my representation you will make hundreds of millions of dollars (just think of all the chicks) and all you have to do is present a credible case in an American civil court!. Now get busy, Princess!

 

[Mr. Jones]

"Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman Sachs partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the Lessor. Larry Silverstein, New York developer and friend of Netanyahu (every Sunday Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the Lessee."

Still confused?

Who Destroyed The WTC?

That's it? That's your evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demo? No wonder the insurers aren't asking you to help them get their BILLIONS back. You're lame and perhaps just a bigot.

That's my evidence of two obvious truths.
Why do you find it difficult to stay on topic?

It's his/her/its job..Avoid, deflect, distract, while not acknowledging anything that can't be defended. It's classic trolling on behalf of the 9-11 criminals and the cover up.
I mean just look at what it is trying to establish as proof that science and the laws of physics do not apply to the WTC complex.....insurance fraud!

 

[SAYIT]

"Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman Sachs partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the Lessor. Larry Silverstein, New York developer and friend of Netanyahu (every Sunday Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the Lessee."

Still confused?

Who Destroyed The WTC?

That's it? That's your evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demo? No wonder the insurers aren't asking you to help them get their BILLIONS back. You're lame and perhaps just a bigot.

That's my evidence of two obvious truths.
Why do you find it difficult to stay on topic?

Topic? That your truths prove nothing? Some topic.

 

[georgephillip]

That's it? That's your evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demo? No wonder the insurers aren't asking you to help them get their BILLIONS back. You're lame and perhaps just a bigot.

That's my evidence of two obvious truths.
Why do you find it difficult to stay on topic?

Topic? That your truths prove nothing? Some topic.

The same topic you've been ducking for days...how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers? Eisenberg and Silverstein are two relevant cogs in the official lie.

 

[SAYIT]

That's my evidence of two obvious truths.
Why do you find it difficult to stay on topic?

Topic? That your truths prove nothing? Some topic.

The same topic you've been ducking for days...how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers? Eisenberg and Silverstein are two relevant cogs in the official lie.

You mean what you believe is a lie. Frankly, I find the pseudoscience, half-truths and outright fabrications of the 9/11 CT movement to be downright self-serving and silly.
If you have the juice, let's file a civil suit with the insurers as plaintiffs and make some money on this. Of course, if you know your BS is just BS, there's no point wasting the court's time doing that and we should just hang here and argue. See you tomorrow, Princess.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

and the same five minute video he always ducks and cowardly runs away from like a chickenshit coward and has no answers for for the past few months as well.only pathetic one liners that dont even address the facts.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand...

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
Fantastic! Nobody knows because - drum roll, please - nobody knows!
How convenient!
I certainly can't compete with such powerful logic! Just for my records, could you post a credible link which supports your "facts," Princess?

Facts that substantiate my position on this topic have been posted, with easily understood videos, but again you are now back to playing dumb...It's all a circular game to fucks like you....Why don't you post in your own words why you think the WTC really were destroyed by planes and fire? Feel free to post links/videos... what ever you want.
You've already failed to convince anybody that the OCT is true and legit because insurance fraud was successful...what do you have to lose?

Hey C'mon man, I'm actually helping you try to keep yourself employed, and me entertained at the same time

More lame deflection. C'mon, Princess ... surely you have credible sources which support your conclusions. Just post 'em so we can all get a good laugh. FTR, I'm on your side. When you get your case together I'll approach the insurers, who would love to get their BILLIONS back, and negotiate a 10% recovery fee on your behalf. Of course, I require a modest 20% agent's fee but that still leaves you with lots of money so quit wasting out time and get busy! Thanks.

Oh man you're funny and entertaining while you yourself initiate deflection tactics, and avoid what has been said and posted.


C'mon now all we want is for you to explain how it is possible for the WTC exploding and being destroyed the way NIST has said they were
while circumventing science and laws of physics is really really true because Silverstein managed a brilliant insurance scam....We've been waiting for any logical and reasonable response for a long time now....It looks like it is you little Sayit....yes it is you who is avoiding and deflecting the issue by bringing up the WTC insurance issue....That does not explain what was asked...tsk tsk...Now I've been more then fair and patient...you've had plenty of time to come up with something....I, in good faith have explained my stance, with links, videos and you just ignore it as if they don't exist.....I'm trying to play fair ...but you aren't....You've lost the debate and your credibility......the more you
the worse off you appear to all the others on the thread.....


Why haven't you commented on the article about the WTC, the insurance, the litigation, lawyers, and the federal judges involved????
I've posted this regarding your questions, and you don't even acknowledge them....poor me, I feel so sad that you ignore this stuff, I really wanted to play along....and toast your ass some more....Oh well, you lose no bonus points for you today...let's allow for some super bowl distraction shall we? Maybe there will be event there? Or a super bowl gate or something like that to distract the masses?

It's been a slice and I've enjoyed ripping your ass apart while you scamper around like a twit....or twat...whatever take your pick....or have both as your label...after all....you've earned them..

the OCTA trolls always evade fatcs and change the subject everytime they are cornered.lol.


It's his/her/its job..Avoid, deflect, distract, while not acknowledging anything that can't be defended. It's classic trolling on behalf of the 9-11 criminals and the cover up.
I mean just look at what it is trying to establish as proof that science and the laws of physics do not apply to the WTC complex.....insurance fraud!

 

[georgephillip]

Why are you here?

Because you are, Princess.

I can honestly state I'm not compensated in any material sense for my posts.
Can you?

Are you confused about whether or not you're materially compensated for your contributions to USMB?

 

[paulitician]

Because you are, Princess.

I can honestly state I'm not compensated in any material sense for my posts.
Can you?

Are you confused about whether or not you're materially compensated for your contributions to USMB?

Sock Troll asshole. We're guessing it's del a.k.a. (The Gimp) or Candyass/dawgshit. Could be all three though. Who knows? And probably not a paid Big Brother Troll. It's much worse, he or she trolls for Big Brother for free. What a wanker.

 

[Montrovant]

I can honestly state I'm not compensated in any material sense for my posts.
Can you?

Are you confused about whether or not you're materially compensated for your contributions to USMB?

Sock Troll asshole. We're guessing it's del a.k.a. (The Gimp) or Candyass/dawgshit. Could be all three though. Who knows? And probably not a paid Big Brother Troll. It's much worse, he or she trolls for Big Brother for free. What a wanker.

Because it couldn't possibly be that someone honestly disagrees with you, could it? That someone truly believes the towers came down because of the planes and not controlled demo? No, that just couldn't be true!

I may think that most of you who are truthers are nutty, but I can at least accept that you may honestly believe what you post. I don't have to assume you are paid to say what you do or that you are nothing but trolls to disagree with my infinite wisdom.

 

[paulitician]

Are you confused about whether or not you're materially compensated for your contributions to USMB?

Sock Troll asshole. We're guessing it's del a.k.a. (The Gimp) or Candyass/dawgshit. Could be all three though. Who knows? And probably not a paid Big Brother Troll. It's much worse, he or she trolls for Big Brother for free. What a wanker.

Because it couldn't possibly be that someone honestly disagrees with you, could it? That someone truly believes the towers came down because of the planes and not controlled demo? No, that just couldn't be true!

I may think that most of you who are truthers are nutty, but I can at least accept that you may honestly believe what you post. I don't have to assume you are paid to say what you do or that you are nothing but trolls to disagree with my infinite wisdom.

Nah, i don't mind disagreement. That's what Message Boards are all about. But the truth is, there are paid Government Trolls who troll Social Networks and Message Boards. That's just reality. And that particular wanker is known to have many Socks. But i doubt he or she is a paid Government Troll. It does it for free. It's an obsession for it. A real nutter.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you confused about whether or not you're materially compensated for your contributions to USMB?

Sock Troll asshole. We're guessing it's del a.k.a. (The Gimp) or Candyass/dawgshit. Could be all three though. Who knows? And probably not a paid Big Brother Troll. It's much worse, he or she trolls for Big Brother for free. What a wanker.

Because it couldn't possibly be that someone honestly disagrees with you, could it? That someone truly believes the towers came down because of the planes and not controlled demo? No, that just couldn't be true!

I may think that most of you who are truthers are nutty, but I can at least accept that you may honestly believe what you post. I don't have to assume you are paid to say what you do or that you are nothing but trolls to disagree with my infinite wisdom.

Someone who honestly disagreed with allegations like the 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration observed for WTC7 and the evidence of thermitic nano-spheres found in the dust particles from all three towers wouldn't fabricate illusions of insurance fraud, IMHO.

Do we agree the stakes could not be higher on this question?

If elements of the US government facilitated the events of 911, the Republican Party vanishes from the page of US History. No single event in this country's history has the power to Change USA First Principles virtually overnight that 911 has. Those who deflect instead of refute observations that are counter to their beliefs do little to make me believe they have the slightest interest in finding the truth.