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

[Montrovant]

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.

Many think that the supposed evidence of controlled demolition, be it the free fall or thermite or what have you, is ridiculous. What you and other CT proponents consider obvious, incontrovertible proof that the official story is false, others see as crazy, pie in the sky foolishness. I think there's often a huge disconnect between the two sides of the issue; each side can't believe the other can actually believe what they are saying. This leads to the kind of insulting, attacking back and forth we tend to see in this forum. It's not a matter of honest folks vs paid trolls, or even of rational people vs nutters. Similarly to what goes on in the politics forum, I think it's too much my side vs your side, where my side is being honest and reasonable and your side is lying when they disagree with me.

Look, one of my first reactions when I, like so many others, watched the towers fall live on tv was, 'Why did they fall straight down onto themselves like that? Why didn't they topple, why wasn't the collapse uneven at some point leading to a sideways lean?' It seemed unlikely that such a contained, straight into itself collapse could happen. So I can certainly understand people having some questions about what happened on 9/11. However, there is a huge difference between having questions and the multitude of conspiracy theories that are bandied about. There were no planes, they were unmanned drones. It was the CIA. It was the Mossad. It was the one-world-order, secret behind the scenes people controlling us all. The planes really did hit, but the towers were already wired with explosives in case of just such an event. The changing list of theories seems endless. It's hard to take any of it seriously when there are so many theories, with usually flimsy evidence, at best, and sometimes they are even mutually exclusive.

People on both sides of this argument, truthers and those who believe it was a terrorist attack, honestly believe in what they claim. Each may find the others views to be crazy, but passing disagreement off as nothing but paid government trolls is, IMO, a tacit admission that one cannot accept that people see things differently.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Many think that the supposed evidence of controlled demolition, be it the free fall or thermite or what have you, is ridiculous. What you and other CT proponents consider obvious, incontrovertible proof that the official story is false, others see as crazy, pie in the sky foolishness. I think there's often a huge disconnect between the two sides of the issue; each side can't believe the other can actually believe what they are saying. This leads to the kind of insulting, attacking back and forth we tend to see in this forum. It's not a matter of honest folks vs paid trolls, or even of rational people vs nutters. Similarly to what goes on in the politics forum, I think it's too much my side vs your side, where my side is being honest and reasonable and your side is lying when they disagree with me.

Look, one of my first reactions when I, like so many others, watched the towers fall live on tv was, 'Why did they fall straight down onto themselves like that? Why didn't they topple, why wasn't the collapse uneven at some point leading to a sideways lean?' It seemed unlikely that such a contained, straight into itself collapse could happen. So I can certainly understand people having some questions about what happened on 9/11. However, there is a huge difference between having questions and the multitude of conspiracy theories that are bandied about. There were no planes, they were unmanned drones. It was the CIA. It was the Mossad. It was the one-world-order, secret behind the scenes people controlling us all. The planes really did hit, but the towers were already wired with explosives in case of just such an event. The changing list of theories seems endless. It's hard to take any of it seriously when there are so many theories, with usually flimsy evidence, at best, and sometimes they are even mutually exclusive.

People on both sides of this argument, truthers and those who believe it was a terrorist attack, honestly believe in what they claim. Each may find the others views to be crazy, but passing disagreement off as nothing but paid government trolls is, IMO, a tacit admission that one cannot accept that people see things differently.

Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?

 

[Montrovant]

Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?

Honestly, no....but not because I disagree so much as I am not well-enough informed about the investigation that took place to say if it was thorough enough or not.

I am fine with people saying they want more investigation (although I think it's a pretty unrealistic hope this far from the event). It's the attached reasoning that often boggles my mind.

Oh, and as far as Sayit's harping on the insurance companies, I can't speak for him/her, but I think it's part of a larger point. That point would be that there are so many people who would have had to be involved in a government plot, so many people and companies with a vested interest in what happened and who would absolutely love to prove that it wasn't a terrorist attack, that the idea becomes ludicrous. Thinking that some random internet CT person has the truth that companies with huge resources could not come up with, and that further, all the people involved in the plot and cover-up have remained silent, stretches credulity to the limits.

So while I wouldn't say that the insurance companies being unable to show proof of a government conspiracy is proof of the validity of the official investigation, I DO think it's another good indication that the entire event being a government-run op is unlikely at best.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

Many think that the supposed evidence of controlled demolition, be it the free fall or thermite or what have you, is ridiculous. What you and other CT proponents consider obvious, incontrovertible proof that the official story is false, others see as crazy, pie in the sky foolishness. I think there's often a huge disconnect between the two sides of the issue; each side can't believe the other can actually believe what they are saying. This leads to the kind of insulting, attacking back and forth we tend to see in this forum. It's not a matter of honest folks vs paid trolls, or even of rational people vs nutters. Similarly to what goes on in the politics forum, I think it's too much my side vs your side, where my side is being honest and reasonable and your side is lying when they disagree with me.

Look, one of my first reactions when I, like so many others, watched the towers fall live on tv was, 'Why did they fall straight down onto themselves like that? Why didn't they topple, why wasn't the collapse uneven at some point leading to a sideways lean?' It seemed unlikely that such a contained, straight into itself collapse could happen. So I can certainly understand people having some questions about what happened on 9/11. However, there is a huge difference between having questions and the multitude of conspiracy theories that are bandied about. There were no planes, they were unmanned drones. It was the CIA. It was the Mossad. It was the one-world-order, secret behind the scenes people controlling us all. The planes really did hit, but the towers were already wired with explosives in case of just such an event. The changing list of theories seems endless. It's hard to take any of it seriously when there are so many theories, with usually flimsy evidence, at best, and sometimes they are even mutually exclusive.

People on both sides of this argument, truthers and those who believe it was a terrorist attack, honestly believe in what they claim. Each may find the others views to be crazy, but passing disagreement off as nothing but paid government trolls is, IMO, a tacit admission that one cannot accept that people see things differently.

Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?

thats the understatement of the century that there was never a real investigation.Just like in the kennedy assassination,waco,and oklahoma city bombing,same pattern follows,destroction of evidence and evidence illegally removed and the corporate controlled media gives their version and includes important evidence and facts and witness testimonys.same old pattern,also same result as the kennedy assassination,people who came forward and gave versions different than the governments dying in very mysterious ways again and its all just a bizarre coincidence according to the coincidence theorists here that the only three towers that fell that day were all owned by zionist jew Larry Silverstein,tha the others that were not owned by him did not and others that were much close and had far more extensive damage and fires done to them than bld 7 did by debris, did not collapse..yep conspiracy there.

the facts have been proven to show it was a joint CIA/mossad operation.the official conspiracy theory apologists will ignore these facts in these teo videos and wont watch them.they never have answers for them and clearly dont know how to debate.





the people that defend the governments version of events that are not paid shills here like whitehall for instance,dont know why you bother with them,they obviously did not look at the short video at the start of this threrad I posted.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

they got paid shills like him everywhere on message boards to try and derail truth discussions like 9/11.this one other message board I go to they are there in droves,much more so than they are here.No reason to think he isnt one as well though.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

they got paid shills like him everywhere on message boards to try and derail truth discussions like 9/11.this one other message board I go to they are there in droves,much more so than they are here.No reason to think he isnt one as well though.

Just how many people do you think are on the government payroll trolling the many message boards out there?

I mean, aren't there many thousands of message boards, twitter discussions, facebook pages, etc. etc. that the government would need to send paid trolls to to derail discussions?

It just seems unlikely that everyone who disagrees with you on a forum is a paid troll. Maybe they are out there, but sheer numbers would lead me to guess there are few of them on any given site.

 

[Montrovant]

Many think that the supposed evidence of controlled demolition, be it the free fall or thermite or what have you, is ridiculous. What you and other CT proponents consider obvious, incontrovertible proof that the official story is false, others see as crazy, pie in the sky foolishness. I think there's often a huge disconnect between the two sides of the issue; each side can't believe the other can actually believe what they are saying. This leads to the kind of insulting, attacking back and forth we tend to see in this forum. It's not a matter of honest folks vs paid trolls, or even of rational people vs nutters. Similarly to what goes on in the politics forum, I think it's too much my side vs your side, where my side is being honest and reasonable and your side is lying when they disagree with me.

Look, one of my first reactions when I, like so many others, watched the towers fall live on tv was, 'Why did they fall straight down onto themselves like that? Why didn't they topple, why wasn't the collapse uneven at some point leading to a sideways lean?' It seemed unlikely that such a contained, straight into itself collapse could happen. So I can certainly understand people having some questions about what happened on 9/11. However, there is a huge difference between having questions and the multitude of conspiracy theories that are bandied about. There were no planes, they were unmanned drones. It was the CIA. It was the Mossad. It was the one-world-order, secret behind the scenes people controlling us all. The planes really did hit, but the towers were already wired with explosives in case of just such an event. The changing list of theories seems endless. It's hard to take any of it seriously when there are so many theories, with usually flimsy evidence, at best, and sometimes they are even mutually exclusive.

People on both sides of this argument, truthers and those who believe it was a terrorist attack, honestly believe in what they claim. Each may find the others views to be crazy, but passing disagreement off as nothing but paid government trolls is, IMO, a tacit admission that one cannot accept that people see things differently.

Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?

thats the understatement of the century that there was never a real investigation.Just like in the kennedy assassination,waco,and oklahoma city bombing,same pattern follows,destroction of evidence and evidence illegally removed and the corporate controlled media gives their version and includes important evidence and facts and witness testimonys.same old pattern,also same result as the kennedy assassination,people who came forward and gave versions different than the governments dying in very mysterious ways again and its all just a bizarre coincidence according to the coincidence theorists here that the only three towers that fell that day were all owned by zionist jew Larry Silverstein,tha the others that were not owned by him did not and others that were much close and had far more extensive damage and fires done to them than bld 7 did by debris, did not collapse..yep conspiracy there.

the facts have been proven to show it was a joint CIA/mossad operation.the official conspiracy theory apologists will ignore these facts in these teo videos and wont watch them.they never have answers for them and clearly dont know how to debate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_vwzjdTi4]9/11 - Missing Links ( full movie ) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43zl4fzDQg]Extreme Prejudice - CIA Whistle Blower Susan Lindauer PDX 911Truth - YouTube[/ame]

the people that defend the governments version of events that are not paid shills here like whitehall for instance,dont know why you bother with them,they obviously did not look at the short video at the start of this threrad I posted.

Here's the thing.....that's 3.5 hours or so of my life you want me to devote to watching these videos, when they are coming from someone who I have never found to come of as particularly credible. I certainly wouldn't expect you to watch 3.5 hours of videos showing why the government report is true, especially if it came from one of the people you think is a paid troll!

 

[GuyPinestra]

Here's the thing.....that's 3.5 hours or so of my life you want me to devote to watching these videos, when they are coming from someone who I have never found to come of as particularly credible. I certainly wouldn't expect you to watch 3.5 hours of videos showing why the government report is true, especially if it came from one of the people you think is a paid troll!

Coming from the other side, I've watched better than 100 hours of videos over the last 12 years on 9/11, from BOTH sides. I've also spent WEEKS reading everything from the NIST report to the 9/11 Architects and Engineers for Truth. Some of the 'truther' videos I consider to be 'way out there', just as some of the 'debunker' videos are. At the end of the day though, there are obvious questions that remain unanswered and areas of discussion that remain unaddressed.

I have yet to find ANY explanation for the 2.5 seconds of free fall demonstrated by Building 7, I have yet to hear ANY explanation of multi-ton sections of debris from Buildings 1 & 2 that somehow traveled LATERALLY for several hundred feet, I have yet to hear ANY explanation of the massive destruction in the lobbies of 1 & 2 that were videotaped prior to their collapse, and I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of the premature BBC broadcast describing the fall of Building 7 PRIOR to it's collapse. (You can SEE the building in the background of the broadcast, even.)

But my BIGGEST 'WTF' is how the 'failure' of ONE vertical support column in Building 7 (#79) could cause the symmetrical and TOTAL collapse of a 47 story, steel-framed structure.

It just doesn't pass the smell test, IMHO.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Which "particular wanker?" 9/11 Hand Job? Pauli? Mr. Jones? You? After all, you all seem to hear the same mysterious voices from your toasters. Are you all paid trolls? Socks?

 

[SAYIT]

Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?

Honestly, no....but not because I disagree so much as I am not well-enough informed about the investigation that took place to say if it was thorough enough or not.

I am fine with people saying they want more investigation (although I think it's a pretty unrealistic hope this far from the event). It's the attached reasoning that often boggles my mind.

Oh, and as far as Sayit's harping on the insurance companies, I can't speak for him/her, but I think it's part of a larger point. That point would be that there are so many people who would have had to be involved in a government plot, so many people and companies with a vested interest in what happened and who would absolutely love to prove that it wasn't a terrorist attack, that the idea becomes ludicrous. Thinking that some random internet CT person has the truth that companies with huge resources could not come up with, and that further, all the people involved in the plot and cover-up have remained silent, stretches credulity to the limits.

So while I wouldn't say that the insurance companies being unable to show proof of a government conspiracy is proof of the validity of the official investigation, I DO think it's another good indication that the entire event being a government-run op is unlikely at best.

Because I believe anyone with even modest intelligence would see the larger point as you do (not saying yours is modest by any means), I suspect virtually all of these Nutters (except perhaps 9/11 Hand Job) do. In order to maintain their Nutterness, however, they must avoid the obvious at all costs.

 

[georgephillip]

Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?

Honestly, no....but not because I disagree so much as I am not well-enough informed about the investigation that took place to say if it was thorough enough or not.

I am fine with people saying they want more investigation (although I think it's a pretty unrealistic hope this far from the event). It's the attached reasoning that often boggles my mind.

Oh, and as far as Sayit's harping on the insurance companies, I can't speak for him/her, but I think it's part of a larger point. That point would be that there are so many people who would have had to be involved in a government plot, so many people and companies with a vested interest in what happened and who would absolutely love to prove that it wasn't a terrorist attack, that the idea becomes ludicrous. Thinking that some random internet CT person has the truth that companies with huge resources could not come up with, and that further, all the people involved in the plot and cover-up have remained silent, stretches credulity to the limits.

So while I wouldn't say that the insurance companies being unable to show proof of a government conspiracy is proof of the validity of the official investigation, I DO think it's another good indication that the entire event being a government-run op is unlikely at best.

Because I believe anyone with even modest intelligence would see the larger point as you do (not saying yours is modest by any means), I suspect virtually all of these Nutters (except perhaps 9/11 Hand Job) do. In order to maintain their Nutterness, however, they must avoid the obvious at all costs.

Then explain the obvious 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration displayed by WTC7.

 

[SAYIT]

Honestly, no....but not because I disagree so much as I am not well-enough informed about the investigation that took place to say if it was thorough enough or not.

I am fine with people saying they want more investigation (although I think it's a pretty unrealistic hope this far from the event). It's the attached reasoning that often boggles my mind.

Oh, and as far as Sayit's harping on the insurance companies, I can't speak for him/her, but I think it's part of a larger point. That point would be that there are so many people who would have had to be involved in a government plot, so many people and companies with a vested interest in what happened and who would absolutely love to prove that it wasn't a terrorist attack, that the idea becomes ludicrous. Thinking that some random internet CT person has the truth that companies with huge resources could not come up with, and that further, all the people involved in the plot and cover-up have remained silent, stretches credulity to the limits.

So while I wouldn't say that the insurance companies being unable to show proof of a government conspiracy is proof of the validity of the official investigation, I DO think it's another good indication that the entire event being a government-run op is unlikely at best.

Because I believe anyone with even modest intelligence would see the larger point as you do (not saying yours is modest by any means), I suspect virtually all of these Nutters (except perhaps 9/11 Hand Job) do. In order to maintain their Nutterness, however, they must avoid the obvious at all costs.

Then explain the obvious 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration displayed by WTC7.

I'm no physicist and I'll not play your little game of "what the definition of 'is' is."
I'll simply remind you that real experts with much to gain have failed , since 9/11, to make your case anywhere but the Internet CT World. For you and I to play your silly game would be great if we were both 12 years old and you were a girl.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Because I believe anyone with even modest intelligence would see the larger point as you do (not saying yours is modest by any means), I suspect virtually all of these Nutters (except perhaps 9/11 Hand Job) do. In order to maintain their Nutterness, however, they must avoid the obvious at all costs.

Then explain the obvious 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration displayed by WTC7.

I'm no physicist and I'll not play your little game of "what the definition of 'is' is."
I'll simply remind you that real experts with much to gain have failed , since 9/11, to make your case anywhere but the Internet CT World. For you and I to play your silly game would be great if we were both 12 years old and you were a girl.

And there you have it folks, straight from the horses mouth, admitting that he/she/it , refuses
to even divulge the minimal attention to basic science and physics, that is required to fully understand the MAIN OBJECTIONS TO THE NIST/OCT!!

These facts are not a silly game, and the science and physics regarding the destruction of massive steel buildings, that ultimately changed the course of US and world history, is not some game for "12 year old girls"......."princess" Perhaps that is what you really are, hence your avoidance of such subject matter, IDK...

You have proven and shown to the sincere posters on both sides of the issue your disdain, laziness, and contempt for such things, and it is no wonder you are so badly damaged mentally, and come off as nothing but a trolling fool, and in a majority of your posts, quite the ignorant asshole.

I have stated many times that once a person takes the time to get into the science, and physics of the WTC destruction, one will at least have a better understanding of this topic.
You on the other hand do nothing to advance your knowledge about it, and admit that you ignore it, and trivialize it as some child's play..While applauding the efforts of the physicists that concocted the NIST report, who used their position of authority as a government agency to blow smoke up the asses of ignorant children like your self...

Well this finally explains your complete and utter lack of knowledge or any semblance of intelligence on the topic of 9-11...You can't discuss or debate something you know nothing about, or aren't at least willing to learn....Fucking idiot lol!!
BTW it is you that has avoided the obvious at all costs and forever damaged any hope of you gaining any real credibility....

 

[paulitician]

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.

Which "particular wanker?" 9/11 Hand Job? Pauli? Mr. Jones? You? After all, you all seem to hear the same mysterious voices from your toasters. Are you all paid trolls? Socks?

Obviously you're the particular wanker i was referring to. Your numerous Sock Trolls are lame. And you do troll for Big Brother for free. That makes you a pathetic loon. But hey, have fun Sock coward. Whatever.

 

[Montrovant]

How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI]Building 7 Explained - YouTube[/ame]

And there are plenty more.

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.

 

[georgephillip]

Because I believe anyone with even modest intelligence would see the larger point as you do (not saying yours is modest by any means), I suspect virtually all of these Nutters (except perhaps 9/11 Hand Job) do. In order to maintain their Nutterness, however, they must avoid the obvious at all costs.

Then explain the obvious 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration displayed by WTC7.

I'm no physicist and I'll not play your little game of "what the definition of 'is' is."
I'll simply remind you that real experts with much to gain have failed , since 9/11, to make your case anywhere but the Internet CT World. For you and I to play your silly game would be great if we were both 12 years old and you were a girl.

So link to any expert you can find who's disproved the allegation that WTC7 collapsed at free fall acceleration over nearly eight floors.

 

[Mr. Jones]

How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!

Building 7 Explained - YouTube

And there are plenty more.

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.

If this computer simulation is to be considered so accurate....then why do tell, doesn't the NIST allow their data to be used for replication purposes?
Your ignorant appeal to a government authority is really telling, in that you don't seem to realize that it is certain factions within the US government that are the perpetrators of the lies regarding the 9-11 attacks.
How the fuck can you expect to appeal to the authority that is the main culprit, and that was tasked to conduct an honest and open investigation, including being forthcoming with the way the obtained their results....but were not?

We have posted proof and evidence that anyone with a basic grade school education could understand concerning the obvious distortions in the NIST report, yet you insist on using this discredited agency and report as a defense against what we post???

I could post much about their report that doesn't jive with the real world and readily visible results, and how they jumbled their data, but it is up to you as one of their defenders to prove us wrong, and you and the rest of your cohorts have failed.

Get with it or get on down the road, you bring nothing new to the discussion that solidifies your views.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Then explain the obvious 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration displayed by WTC7.

I'm no physicist and I'll not play your little game of "what the definition of 'is' is."
I'll simply remind you that real experts with much to gain have failed , since 9/11, to make your case anywhere but the Internet CT World. For you and I to play your silly game would be great if we were both 12 years old and you were a girl.

So link to any expert you can find who's disproved the allegation that WTC7 collapsed at free fall acceleration over nearly eight floors.

And how it was possible as well..But alas...he/she/it will just post how since the insurance companies were fucked over, the NIST/OCT is bound to be true lol....

These people have nothing....absolutely nothing that they can use to refute the real word facts that when analyzed, make the NIST look like the junk science that it is, and in the process, makes them look like the fools that they are as well for even using them as any kind of rebuttal..
Their reasoning is, that because they are a government agency, they are benevolent and honest, and would never screw their data to achieve a desired outcome, and they would never ever lie in the process.
They never pay attention to the real argument....they always rely on the gubmint to be straight with them LOL! Talk about stupid and naive...jeez...

 

[GuyPinestra]

How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!

Building 7 Explained - YouTube

And there are plenty more.

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.

If the video is true why didn't at least one of THESE collapse? Why has no other steel-framed highrise in HISTORY collapsed from fire?

 

[Montrovant]

How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!

Building 7 Explained - YouTube

And there are plenty more.

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.

If this computer simulation is to be considered so accurate....then why do tell, doesn't the NIST allow their data to be used for replication purposes?
Your ignorant appeal to a government authority is really telling, in that you don't seem to realize that it is certain factions within the US government that are the perpetrators of the lies regarding the 9-11 attacks.
How the fuck can you expect to appeal to the authority that is the main culprit, and that was tasked to conduct an honest and open investigation, including being forthcoming with the way the obtained their results....but were not?

We have posted proof and evidence that anyone with a basic grade school education could understand concerning the obvious distortions in the NIST report, yet you insist on using this discredited agency and report as a defense against what we post???

I could post much about their report that doesn't jive with the real world and readily visible results, and how they jumbled their data, but it is up to you as one of their defenders to prove us wrong, and you and the rest of your cohorts have failed.

Get with it or get on down the road, you bring nothing new to the discussion that solidifies your views.

And this is why so many of us have so little patience with the CT posters.

I did NOT appeal to government authority. In fact, I clearly asked if those who are NOT part of the government investigation, but agree with it's findings, must also be part of whatever conspiracy is at work.

I did not use the NIST report to try and debunk any claims you have made. I posted a youtube video of someone who claims to have debunked the free-fall, full building collapse idea.

Maybe if you didn't automatically assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a paid government agent, or completely believes the government's investigation, or whatever other assumptions you are making, you might see that some people just DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS. Some people just are NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE SUPPOSED EVIDENCE YOU HAVE PRESENTED. None of that means belief in the NIST conclusions. It is possible to disbelieve both, or at least not be sure what the truth is.

Get back to me when you want to talk about what I actually post, rather than the delusions you create to pigeonhole me into whatever box you find most convenient.