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

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj487RNAi14]wtc tower 7 high resolution collapse footage: clip 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

There are several billion dollars available from government and private entities, and better than $3 billion left from the insurance.
As the cost overruns pile up, Congress will write Larry ANOTHER check to get him 'over the hump'...

You have no idea what costs Silverstein has incurred. For instance, he ceded some of his right to rebuild along with some of the insurance money to the Port Authority.
Any idea what that cost him?
You have no idea what remains of the insurance settlement, no idea what it will cost him to rebuild and no evidence that Congress has ever or will ever write "Larry" a check.
It seems you are slowly oozing out of the closet, Bubba, and I'm not a bit surprised by what is oozing out.

Speaking of 'oozing', you might want to wipe your chin and tone down the hysterics a notch or two.

You claim I 'have no idea', but the fact is I have some facts to go on.
Fact 3.) Your stated expenses so far have totaled approximately $1 billion.

I did not state the "expenses so far have totaled approx $1 bil" you lying slug, but you have done so repeatedly.
I have consistently proven they are far higher. The $10 mil/month alone (138 months since 9/11) totals $1.38 bil. I suggest you lay off the crack pipe.

 

[paulitician]

Oh just STFU! Big Brother always tells the truth and he knows what's best for ya. And if you quesion that, you're a "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Hater."

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI]4409 -- (Unseen Footage) Tower 7 blasted into rubble from NEW angle! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

I'm not an engineer or an architect, and I'm sure there are many who accept the government's explanation for what happened on 9/11/01. To my knowledge, those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory have not bothered to organize and agitate the way their opponents have.

The biggest difference I see between the two camps is simply this: 911 skeptics argue there is sufficient controversy to warrant a full public investigation by the entire US Congress with all principals required to testify in public and under oath.

Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

 

[SAYIT]

Oh just STFU! Big Brother always tells the truth and he knows what's best for ya. And if you quesion that, you're a "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Hater."

Typically lame Straw Man. Would you like some cheese with that whine, Princess? Music?

 

[paulitician]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

I'm not an engineer or an architect, and I'm sure there are many who accept the government's explanation for what happened on 9/11/01. To my knowledge, those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory have not bothered to organize and agitate the way their opponents have.

The biggest difference I see between the two camps is simply this: 911 skeptics argue there is sufficient controversy to warrant a full public investigation by the entire US Congress with all principals required to testify in public and under oath.

Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Hey douchebag, many of your "9/11 CT skeptics" are actual loved ones of those lost in the attack. They deserve truth. So piss off asshole.

 

[eots]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

I'm not an engineer or an architect, and I'm sure there are many who accept the government's explanation for what happened on 9/11/01. To my knowledge, those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory have not bothered to organize and agitate the way their opponents have.

The biggest difference I see between the two camps is simply this: 911 skeptics argue there is sufficient controversy to warrant a full public investigation by the entire US Congress with all principals required to testify in public and under oath.

Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

meaningless link void of any substance

 

[paulitician]

Oh just STFU! Big Brother always tells the truth and he knows what's best for ya. And if you quesion that, you're a "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Hater."

Typically lame Straw Man. Would you like some cheese with that whine, Princess? Music?

Nah, sums you ignorant Goose Steppers up quite accurately.

 

[SAYIT]

its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense

Could you spend a minute listing a few of the "several former NIST" investigators you claim leveled charges at the NIST report and the charges they made? You weren't lying when you said that, were you, Princess?

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not an engineer or an architect, and I'm sure there are many who accept the government's explanation for what happened on 9/11/01. To my knowledge, those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory have not bothered to organize and agitate the way their opponents have.

The biggest difference I see between the two camps is simply this: 911 skeptics argue there is sufficient controversy to warrant a full public investigation by the entire US Congress with all principals required to testify in public and under oath.

Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

meaningless link void of any substance

You're too funny!

 

[paulitician]

its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense

Could you spend a minute listing a few of the "several former NIST" investigators you claim leveled charges at the NIST report and the charges they made? You weren't lying when you said that, were you, Princess?

Hey Sock, the "Princess" thing is pretty old. Get some new material. You're running on empty. Now you're just embarassing yourself.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not an engineer or an architect, and I'm sure there are many who accept the government's explanation for what happened on 9/11/01. To my knowledge, those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory have not bothered to organize and agitate the way their opponents have.

The biggest difference I see between the two camps is simply this: 911 skeptics argue there is sufficient controversy to warrant a full public investigation by the entire US Congress with all principals required to testify in public and under oath.

Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Hey douchebag, many of your "9/11 CT skeptics" are actual loved ones of those lost in the attack. They deserve truth. So piss off asshole.

Yeah ... I've noticed your "concern" for the loved ones of tragedy vics over on the Sandy Hook thread, Princess. You are one particulary slimy individual, plying your lowlife CT trade before the bodies were cold.

 

[eots]

Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Hey douchebag, many of your "9/11 CT skeptics" are actual loved ones of those lost in the attack. They deserve truth. So piss off asshole.

Yeah ... I've noticed your "concern" for the loved ones of tragedy vics over on the Sandy Hook thread, Princess. You are one particulary slimy individual, plying your lowlife CT trade before the bodies were cold.

so explain the column 79 theory for us

 

[paulitician]

Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Hey douchebag, many of your "9/11 CT skeptics" are actual loved ones of those lost in the attack. They deserve truth. So piss off asshole.

Yeah ... I've noticed your "concern" for the loved ones of tragedy vics over on the Sandy Hook thread, Princess. You are one particulary slimy individual, plying your lowlife CT trade before the bodies were cold.

So douchebag, what do you have to say to those loved ones who still believe their Government lied to them? I dare you to call them "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Haters" to their faces. Give it a shot pussy.

 

[SAYIT]

"The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2013[1]). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons."

How many of those 130,000 employees said anything before Hiroshima?

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really? That's the best you can do? Those working on the Bomb with knowledge of what was up were committed to helping America defend itself in case of war. They knew what they were researching. What would keep all those hard hat demo peeps, each of whom would have known what was up, from wondering out loud why they were rigging the Towers? Surely someone would have seen them. Surely some of them would have come forward on 9/12 if only to garner their 15 minutes of fame. Game over, Princess, but if you put another dollar in the slot you can try again.

blah blah blah..a building does not fall in this manner from fire

Obviously it does. Got any evidence they were rigged for demo?

 

[eots]

its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense

Could you spend a minute listing a few of the "several former NIST" investigators you claim leveled charges at the NIST report and the charges they made? You weren't lying when you said that, were you, Princess?

I already address this...but perhaps you can tell us more about how dr Q had no involvement in the nist investigation

 

[eots]

Really? That's the best you can do? Those working on the Bomb with knowledge of what was up were committed to helping America defend itself in case of war. They knew what they were researching. What would keep all those hard hat demo peeps, each of whom would have known what was up, from wondering out loud why they were rigging the Towers? Surely someone would have seen them. Surely some of them would have come forward on 9/12 if only to garner their 15 minutes of fame. Game over, Princess, but if you put another dollar in the slot you can try again.

blah blah blah..a building does not fall in this manner from fire

Obviously it does. Got any evidence they were rigged for demo?

the nature of the collapse is evidence...any evidence of the column 79 theory ? do you even know how NIST created this theory ?

 

[SAYIT]

Hey douchebag, many of your "9/11 CT skeptics" are actual loved ones of those lost in the attack. They deserve truth. So piss off asshole.

Yeah ... I've noticed your "concern" for the loved ones of tragedy vics over on the Sandy Hook thread, Princess. You are one particulary slimy individual, plying your lowlife CT trade before the bodies were cold.

so explain the column 79 theory for us

It's you who's obsessed with it, Princess ... you go first but before you begin would you post the names of a few of what you claim are "several former NIST" investigators who have leveled "charges" against NIST and the charges they made?

 

[SAYIT]

its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense

Could you spend a minute listing a few of the "several former NIST" investigators you claim leveled charges at the NIST report and the charges they made? You weren't lying when you said that, were you, Princess?

I already address this...but perhaps you can tell us more about how dr Q had no involvement in the nist investigation

Really? Could you link me to that post? Thanks.