# Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)



## GrowRebel (Feb 4, 2008)

Since we all love to talk about 911 I found a video using a couple of movie (popular actor in it) to characterize what may have taken place ... then I have a video done by the very brave Alex Jones ...  about why Micheal Moore failed to mention a lot of facts in his 911 film ... 

... I think if he had of been as open and honest in his movie about what really happen that day ... it would never have made it to the national theaters ... wouldn't you agree?

911 Vendetta 7 mins 

This is the fiction ... but art does imitate life ... 

Micheal Moore is a Fraud 9 mins

One thing I've always like about Jones ... he always backs up whatever he says with his sources ...  ... over 100,000 views too ... good ...

So if you come to this thread claiming Jones is a nut ... you will have to do as he does and back up your claims with sources ... just like Jones ...
... none of that ... Polly what a cracker ... "he's got no evidence ... he's a nut" shit ... that don't fly ... 

So enjoy the new thread ...


----------



## Everready (Feb 4, 2008)

Jones is a nut because the Old media says he is...those guys on fake..er..propaganda...er...fox news are spot on!

It must be difficult for those who accept authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 4, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> Since we all love to talk about 911 I found a video using a couple of movie (popular actor in it) to characterize what may have taken place ... then I have a video done by the very brave Alex Jones ...  about why Micheal Moore failed to mention a lot of facts in his 911 film ...
> 
> ... I think if he had of been as open and honest in his movie about what really happen that day ... it would never have made it to the national theaters ... wouldn't you agree?
> 
> ...


 I think Michael Moore takes some Un-warranted abuse on this clip. I'd have to say the reasons Moore didn't go out on a limb and profess all these theories postulateds by Jones at the time of his film, was that they were too un-believable at that time. He certainly didn't aid and abet GW, it was clear to see that he abhorred the man, and at that time, what he did produce was quite a shock to the people. Had he gone with the more far out nuances of the Jones crowd, he would have been dismissed as a nutjob. What Jones says has a credible ring to it and after watching the Cheney-Bush regime for 7 years, reading books about Bush like (Bushwhacked By Molly Ivins) and coming to a greater understanding of world politics and US involvement, I can actually see Jones' point and give it creedence. But I don't agree with the Michael Moore Bashing. Look what he did with the movie "Sicko". I'm sure he raised awareness of the plight of medical care in the USA. I believe Michael Moore to be a positive force for enlightenment of the American people.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 4, 2008)

I agree Moore has enlighten a great many with his films ... but Jones does have some valid points about Moore's 911 movie ... he did leave out a few facts the Jones pointed out ... 
... and you are right ... if Moore came out exposing a lot of the lies around 911 they would never have allowed it to reach the theaters ...

... I wouldn't view it as Moore bashing ... more like calling him on some of his info ... or lack of in the movie ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 5, 2008)

Hey TED! ... you are just going to LOVE this article check it!

Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11
"I saw those towers fall and I've seen an implosion in Las Vegas - there's too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn't get hit by nothing," added Nelson, referring to WTC Building 7 which collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11.
"How naive are we - what do they think we'll go for?," asked Nelson, pointing out that his doubts began on the very day of 9/11.
"I saw one fall and it was just so symmetrical, I said wait a minute I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas and you see these implosions all the time and the next one fell and I said hell there's another one - and they're trying to tell me that an airplane did it and I can't go along with that," said Nelson.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 6, 2008)

Dam Breaks, ABC Covers W. Nelson Story

Hey Teddy! ... You checking this out? Ha ha ha ha ... 

... and check this out ... for the dummies that say the government had nothing to do with a cover up ... or 911 ... 

911 Inquiry Head Try To Shield (I) bush
The head of the commission that investigated the Sept 11 terrorist attacks had closer ties to the White House than he admitted and tried to limit the Bush administration's responsibility for the incident, a book claims.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02042008.html[URL="http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02042008.html"]Why Were the 9/11 Tapes Destroyed?[/URL]
Many Americans are content with the 9/11 Commission Report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are not. Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a US Senator who resigned from the 9/11 Commission, telling the Boston Globe (November 13, 2003): "This investigation is now compromised." Even former FBI director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 17, 2005) that there are inaccuracies in the commission's report and "questions that need answers."

Oh yeah ... right ... the government had nothing to do with 911 ...


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 6, 2008)

medicineman said:


> I think Michael Moore takes some Un-warranted abuse on this clip. I'd have to say the reasons Moore didn't go out on a limb and profess all these theories postulateds by Jones at the time of his film, was that they were too un-believable at that time. He certainly didn't aid and abet GW, it was clear to see that he abhorred the man, and at that time, what he did produce was quite a shock to the people. Had he gone with the more far out nuances of the Jones crowd, he would have been dismissed as a nutjob. What Jones says has a credible ring to it and after watching the Cheney-Bush regime for 7 years, reading books about Bush like (Bushwhacked By Molly Ivins) and coming to a greater understanding of world politics and US involvement, I can actually see Jones' point and give it creedence. But I don't agree with the Michael Moore Bashing. Look what he did with the movie "Sicko". I'm sure he raised awareness of the plight of medical care in the USA. I believe Michael Moore to be a positive force for enlightenment of the American people.


 Fuck that fat, white, male, hypocritical, pretentious, America hating, money grubbing, stock invested, multi-millionaire, Soros supported, slob of a propagandist fuck Moore-on!!! Can't we all just get along.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 6, 2008)

I find it amusing that the main problem some of these hillbilly fart-smellin conservatives have against Michael moore is that he is fat....


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 6, 2008)

bongspit said:


> I find it amusing that the main problem some of these hillbilly fart-smellin conservatives have against Michael moore is that he is fat....


Those first three were just things that Moore-on and MedMao have in common. It also just happens to be the first group both choose to rail against when given the opportunity to disparage a group. The "fat, lazy, white, rich, greedy, male, CEO?Doctor?etc.etc.etc.etc.". Hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 6, 2008)

Wait a second!!!...........what did you have to say about Fred Thompson? "Old, fat, lazy, stupid....." and on and on. Unreal. Hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 6, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Wait a second!!!...........what did you have to say about Fred Thompson? "Old, fat, lazy, stupid....." and on and on. Unreal. Hypocrisy at its finest.





bongspit said:


> I do not think poor old lazy dumb Fred wants to be president...I believe his trophy wife wants Fred to be president....


fat? did I say fat???


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 6, 2008)

bongspit said:


> fat? did I say fat???



There was more..........of the same. Was fat in there? I don't honestly remember. I should have done my research before disparaging you??


----------



## Inneedofbuds (Feb 6, 2008)

bongspit said:


> fat? did I say fat???


looks like the troll has found a new target. Sorry bongspit...


----------



## bongspit (Feb 6, 2008)

it's ok...you can disparage me all you want...
</IMG>


----------



## medicineman (Feb 6, 2008)

Soooo, More members are learning of the treacherous Cuntdianes bullshit. You're right , he is just a troll with nothing to add and just here to throw shit at members he doesn't like,. well take this you asshole,(CuntDiane) fuck you and the horse you rode in on. BTW is that a patch of weeds you posted, looks like whomever is attempting to grow that mess needs some real help. The only way to get rid of the asshole is to ignore him and just post an expletive whenever he attacks you, like Idiota, or assholio, you get the drift.


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 6, 2008)

bongspit said:


> it's ok...you can disparage me all you want...
> </IMG>


Your too kind.


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 6, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Soooo, More members are learning of the treacherous Cuntdianes bullshit. You're right , he is just a troll with nothing to add and just here to throw shit at members he doesn't like,. well take this you asshole,(CuntDiane) fuck you and the horse you rode in on. BTW is that a patch of weeds you posted, looks like whomever is attempting to grow that mess needs some real help. The only way to get rid of the asshole is to ignore him and just post an expletive whenever he attacks you, like Idiota, or assholio, you get the drift.


Whoever decides to take your advice, whether in growing or in discourse, is in for a shock when the results come in.


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 6, 2008)

Inneedofbuds said:


> looks like the troll has found a new target. Sorry bongspit...


"Quit stalking me!!", "Mommy, grandma......." 

PS- I imagine you speak with a pronounced lisp, not that there's anything wrong with that................hahahahaha


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 7, 2008)

You guys mind if I post some topic related shit? 

Oooo lookie ... more videos on Wille Nelson ... Ted will be pleased.

Willie Nelson's 9/11 Comments Covered by KVUE 3 in Austin 1 min.


Willie Nelson on 9/11: Twin Towers Demolished 9 min.

Go Willie Go!


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 9, 2008)

FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event

So what do you think folks ... error in communication ... or knew before hand ... you decide ...


----------



## bongspit (Feb 9, 2008)

my question is...if a jet hit the pentagon, how come there was not any debris on the outside? I saw the tv coverage immediately after it happened and there was the big hole in the side of the pentagon in the shape of the fuselage, but wouldn't there be wings and other shit on the ground outside?


----------



## avlon06 (Feb 9, 2008)

My one point as to why 911 was not an inside job is Alex Jones. This guy is still alive. IF the government is willing to kill thousands of people durring 911 then what is this one guy who is spreading the "truth" (if you believe 911 was an inside job) to the government. He would be dead already if the government was willing to kill all these people on 911.


----------



## avlon06 (Feb 9, 2008)

bongspit said:


> my question is...if a jet hit the pentagon, how come there was not any debris on the outside? I saw the tv coverage immediately after it happened and there was the big hole in the side of the pentagon in the shape of the fuselage, but wouldn't there be wings and other shit on the ground outside?


who really knows what it would have looked like, how many times do you see a plane crash into a building at such low altitude .


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 9, 2008)

avlon06 said:


> My one point as to why 911 was not an inside job is Alex Jones. This guy is still alive. IF the government is willing to kill thousands of people durring 911 then what is this one guy who is spreading the "truth" (if you believe 911 was an inside job) to the government. He would be dead already if the government was willing to kill all these people on 911.


Good point. However, I went to see Moore's cut & paste propaganda job depicting 9-11 as an inside job, and as I arrived at the theater, there were jack-booted thugs dragging the theater manager out of the building by the hair and beating him mercilessly. These brown-shirted, jack booted thugs had arm bands with a "Bush Regime" logo imprinted on them. All those waiting in line to see the movie were detained for questioning and were subjected to body cavity searches. Lucky for me that I hadn't bought my ticket yet. Instead, I went over to the poster shop and bought a poster that said: "Corporate Power Rules!" The Bush thug guarding that door just nodded his approval. 

Vi


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 9, 2008)

avlon06 said:


> My one point as to why 911 was not an inside job is Alex Jones. This guy is still alive. IF the government is willing to kill thousands of people durring 911 then what is this one guy who is spreading the "truth" (if you believe 911 was an inside job) to the government. He would be dead already if the government was willing to kill all these people on 911.


Jones is not the only one talking about 911 being an inside job ... and they just label him as one of those "conspiracy nutjobs" so folks like you will have something to believe in ... 

...Jones wouldn't be the only one they would have to kill ...


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 9, 2008)

*"...Jones wouldn't be the only one they would have to kill ... "*



Exactly, GrowRebel. That was the point of my last post. Can you imagine how much trouble those theatre managers are in at this point in time? There's been a complete media cover up regarding their arrests and their detainment at the secret location in the Pentagon too. The poor saps are probably being waterboarded as we speak. 

Vi
</IMG></IMG>


----------



## avlon06 (Feb 9, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> Jones is not the only one talking about 911 being an inside job ... and they just label him as one of those "conspiracy nutjobs" so folks like you will have something to believe in ...
> 
> ...Jones wouldn't be the only one they would have to kill ...


I was just using him as an example, if these conspiracy theories were correct about and our government was as fucked up as they make it out to seem, i could see no one that posted 911 conspiracies or anythign similar to live very long, weather they just "disappear" or die suddenly it would happen if our government was that fucked up, but i do not believe that.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 10, 2008)

The poster in the other 911 thread ask people to provide links to back the government story ... you see anything in that thread or this one? ... why is that? ... Just because they're not killing people who speak the truth (probably hope they will be though of as nuts) doesn't mean it didn't happen ... so you think it's bullshit ... show us proof the government is innocent ...


----------



## medicineman (Feb 10, 2008)

Whether the government did it or not is really not the fundamental issue. The real issue is that so many people actually believe they did. That tells volumes about the state of our representative government. The people just don't trust them, they feel, (rightly so), that the government doesn't represent them any more, that the government is owned by corporations, (Rightly so), that we live in an oligarchic plutocracy, (Amen). This kind of government is the best that money can buy, and you and I, well we are paying the bills while the rich are stealing the country, Ahhh, they've already stolen it and now are just enjoying their plunder.


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 10, 2008)

Two questions about the Pentagon remain unanswered for some people:
1. What happened to the building girders?
2. What happened the fuselage of the Boeing 757?

Please understand that the Pentagon was the first major building built with a tension-wire technology. It is still the largest building ever built with tension-wire. This design does not use steel I-beam girders to construct the structure. It is presumed by engineers that slamming a plane into such a building would look a lot like pushing cheese thru a wire cutter.

Furthermore, tests have been done, at high speeds, of slamming a fighter jet into a solid wall. These tests were done to prove what will happen when a jet slams into the side of a nuclear containment building at a power plant. Most of the plane turns to dust or tiny debris. Small pieces of the wingtips and the engines were found, but not much else.



Here is a picture of luggage and debris from the Boeing 757 collected a couple days later. This image seems consistant with expected results from such an impact; based on other observed events.



</IMG>


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 10, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> The poster in the other 911 thread ask people to provide links to back the government story ... you see anything in that thread or this one? ... why is that? ... Just because they're not killing people who speak the truth (probably hope they will be though of as nuts) doesn't mean it didn't happen ... so you think it's bullshit ... *show us proof the government is innocent ...*


Actually, GrowRebel, I have it on high authority that aliens from Mars brought the buildings down. Prove me wrong. 

Vi


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 10, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> Actually, GrowRebel, I have it on high authority that aliens from Mars brought the buildings down. Prove me wrong.
> 
> Vi


Shhhhhh! He just knows the Republicans did it.
</IMG>


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 11, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> Actually, GrowRebel, I have it on high authority that aliens from Mars brought the buildings down. Prove me wrong.
> 
> Vi


The links provided in this thread and the other prove you wrong ... that didn't work like you planned ... did it ...


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 11, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> The links provided in this thread and the other prove you wrong ... that didn't work like you planned ... did it ...


If the links in this thread proved anything it would be the lead story on th NBC Nightly News. 

You are pathetic.
</IMG>


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 12, 2008)

Only an ass like you believes if it's not on corporate news it didn't happen ... anyone with sense knows corporate news lies and fails to report a lot ... better pathetic than a dumb ass bushparrot ...

Polly want a cracker?


----------



## medicineman (Feb 12, 2008)

mockingbird131313 said:


> Two questions about the Pentagon remain unanswered for some people:
> 1. What happened to the building girders?
> 2. What happened the fuselage of the Boeing 757?
> 
> ...


Well, Duhhh, we saw the video of the planes hitting the buildings and the second plane we saw live. We are not disputing the fact that planes did hit the building, only that the whole scenario was planned by the black OPS of the Bush Regime. There are too many coincidences happening at the time of the incident to be random, that is basically what the conspiracy "nutjobs" are saying, check them out for yourself and then use reason to apply a decision. It seems highly suspect.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 12, 2008)

we did not actually see the plane hit the pentagon...could have been an off course cruise missile which is about the same size as a 757...minus the wings...


----------



## medicineman (Feb 12, 2008)

bongspit said:


> we did not actually see the plane hit the pentagon...could have been an off course cruise missile which is about the same size as a 757...minus the wings...


.That is true, they confiscated all the tapes that could have proved them wrong. The one they allowed was inconclusive.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 12, 2008)

medicineman said:


> .That is true, they confiscated all the tapes that could have proved them wrong. The one they allowed was inconclusive.


my ex-brother-in-law, who is a life long army guy told me about a problem with cruise missiles...if they miss their target they sometimes return to where they were fired from...so that 757 was actually shot down by us and the first cruise missile that missed returned to the pentagon...you know what is in the center of the pentagon...??


----------



## COD4 (Feb 12, 2008)

lol @ this thread


----------



## medicineman (Feb 12, 2008)

bongspit said:


> my ex-brother-in-law, who is a life long army guy told me about a problem with cruise missiles...if they miss their target they sometimes return to where they were fired from...so that 757 was actually shot down by us and the first cruise missile that missed returned to the pentagon...you know what is in the center of the pentagon...??


Don't tell me, a cruise missile site,~LOL~. It's pretty camoflaged then as pictures I've seen dont show anything but walkways and plants. Now tell me, where was the wreckage of the 757? I believe if the pentagon doesn't have a few missiles around the area, they are pretty dumb.


----------



## vertise (Feb 12, 2008)

moore is an idiot. He warps everything to his own liking. Remember hes in hollywood, everything you see isnt really what is


----------



## vertise (Feb 12, 2008)

also why would anyone think that cruide missiles go back to where they are fired from if they miss the target. Thats false. 2 things a missile misses it hits another area, second how many ships were lost during the golf war because of missiles coming back bongspit you can learn more from a newspaper then from what someone tells you.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 12, 2008)

vertise said:


> also why would anyone think that cruide missiles go back to where they are fired from if they miss the target. Thats false. 2 things a missile misses it hits another area, second how many ships were lost during the golf war because of missiles coming back bongspit you can learn more from a newspaper then from what someone tells you.


ok dude...I read 3 newspapers every day...have for probably 40 years now...the person that told me about this problem had been in the military for 29 years....I do not know what happened that day...but neither do you....


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 12, 2008)

OK, now let's suppose that the military fired a cruise missle at the 747 and missed. Let's also suppose the cruise missle went off course and hit the Pentagon. 

1. Why would the military cover it up? 

2. As Med sez ... what happened to the 747? 

Vi


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 12, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Well, Duhhh, we saw the video of the planes hitting the buildings and the second plane we saw live. We are not disputing the fact that planes did hit the building, only that the whole scenario was planned by the black OPS of the Bush Regime. There are too many coincidences happening at the time of the incident to be random, that is basically what the conspiracy "nutjobs" are saying, check them out for yourself and then use reason to apply a decision. It seems highly suspect.


Well, Duhhh, some people dispute the planes ever hit the Towers and especially are inclined to dispute that the plane hit the Pentagon. On many web sites and some videos they talk about "missing plane" and "missing girders". So I offered up a reasonable explanation of these two questions.

As for as conspiracy, on 911, is concerned, I have no real insight to offer. I would speculate that an after action plan was developed and implemented. Whether the government had prior knowledge is any ones guess.

If you want to push the idea of a government involvement, then look at the explosion in Oklahoma City. There are all kinds of finger prints there. McVeigh was just one of many participants.


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 12, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> OK, now let's suppose that the military fired a cruise missle at the 747 and missed. Let's also suppose the cruise missle went off course and hit the Pentagon.
> 
> 1. Why would the military cover it up?
> 
> ...


It was a Boeing 757, model 220 I believe.


----------



## vertise (Feb 12, 2008)

you have read a newspaper for 40 years 3 a day and you still use the word Dude and big bubble font


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 12, 2008)

vertise said:


> you have read a newspaper for 40 years 3 a day and you still use the word Dude and big bubble font


New York Times, no doubt.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 12, 2008)

vertise said:


> you have read a newspaper for 40 years 3 a day and you still use the word Dude and big bubble font


I meant to say dick...I use the font because I am legally blind and it's just easier to see...


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 12, 2008)

bongspit said:


> I meant to say dick...I use the font because I am legally blind and it's just easier to see...


Sorry Bongspit...........I didn't know you had a disability. I'll be nicer now that I know.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 13, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Sorry Bongspit...........I didn't know you had a disability. I'll be nicer now that I know.


Hey, i have a disability also, I hate Nazi assholes, does that qualify?


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 13, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Hey, i have a disability also, I hate Nazi assholes, does that qualify?


No Mao, sorry, self loathing isn't a disability.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 13, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Sorry Bongspit...........I didn't know you had a disability. I'll be nicer now that I know.


bite me...


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 13, 2008)

bongspit said:


> bite me...


*CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP
*


----------



## bongspit (Feb 13, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*


your having a good time aren't you???


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 13, 2008)

bongspit said:


> your having a good time aren't you???



No........a great time.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 13, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> No........a great time.


 Idiota-assholio Wow, I like the # 7.


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 13, 2008)

I really liked #9, myself, but #7 was good too.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 13, 2008)

#9, #9, #9, #9#9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9.


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 13, 2008)

medicineman said:


> #9, #9, #9, #9. #9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9, #9.


 Nice effect. An echo? echo?


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 13, 2008)

That's Med's way of greedily slathering after "free" government cheeze ... He think's he's speaking German again ....

*Mine! ... Mine! .... Mine! .... Mine! .... Mine! .... Mine! .... *
</IMG>


----------



## avlon06 (Feb 14, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Whether the government did it or not is really not the fundamental issue. The real issue is that so many people actually believe they did. That tells volumes about the state of our representative government. The people just don't trust them, they feel, (rightly so), that the government doesn't represent them any more, that the government is owned by corporations, (Rightly so), that we live in an oligarchic plutocracy, (Amen). This kind of government is the best that money can buy, and you and I, well we are paying the bills while the rich are stealing the country, Ahhh, they've already stolen it and now are just enjoying their plunder.


do you really think that the big bad corporations are out there to control us and are controlling the government? You need to lay off the weed you are getting paranoid


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

Bongspit, where do you get newspapers in such giant font....LOL, legally blind but you can still get through 3 papers a day. I am assuming it takes the entire day to do that cause newspapers are so discriminatory to the legally blind...Those bastards and there tiny font


----------



## stickyicky77 (Feb 14, 2008)

ALL of Michael Moore's work is pure fiction. He likes to take true facts and twist them around and take them out of context to suite what ever sensational propaganda he is trying to promote at the time to make a buck. He is no different than any other slimy yellow journalist. His work is not even considered a documentary according to the film industry. His work is at the level of the National Enquirer or the Sun. If you believe that 911 is this big conspiracy and that the USA did this to its own people then you are sucker. Just like all the other people that believe Elvis is still alive and pumping gas in Ohio some where. If the Muslim people never would hurt a fly then why are they trying to get there hands on nukes to vaporize you and everyone around you!! US Intel Links Iran With Nuke Bomb Bid , Diplomats Say U.S. Has Shared Intelligence That May Show Iran Trying To Make Nuclear Bomb - CBS News


----------



## bongspit (Feb 14, 2008)

vertise said:


> Bongspit, where do you get newspapers in such giant font....LOL, legally blind but you can still get through 3 papers a day. I am assuming it takes the entire day to do that cause newspapers are so discriminatory to the legally blind...Those bastards and there tiny font


what's up dick? I have a magnifying device for reading newspapers...so their tiny font doesn't bother me....


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 14, 2008)

Years ago, I had a client who was legally blind. The guy was 87 years old and a rabid reader. He wore glasses that looked like the bottoms of Coke bottles AND used a powerful magnifying glass in addition to the glasses. He was really into it. I sold his home and during the transaction he read every word on each paper I put in front of him for his signature. It took a long time to complete all the paperwork, but man ... did I ever admire that guy. 

Vi


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

well you know you should lay off the papers not good for the remaining sight
you got left


----------



## medicineman (Feb 14, 2008)

stickyicky77 said:


> ALL of Michael Moore's work is pure fiction. He likes to take true facts and twist them around and take them out of context to suite what ever sensational propaganda he is trying to promote at the time to make a buck. He is no different than any other slimy yellow journalist. His work is not even considered a documentary according to the film industry. His work is at the level of the National Enquirer or the Sun. If you believe that 911 is this big conspiracy and that the USA did this to its own people then you are sucker. Just like all the other people that believe Elvis is still alive and pumping gas in Ohio some where. If the Muslim people never would hurt a fly then why are they trying to get there hands on nukes to vaporize you and everyone around you!! US Intel Links Iran With Nuke Bomb Bid , Diplomats Say U.S. Has Shared Intelligence That May Show Iran Trying To Make Nuclear Bomb - CBS News


Do you care to prove this or are you just laying pipe. Tell me those rejected procedures by the medical HMOs were bogus, tell Me that that dickhead Bush didn't sit for 7 minutes reading some lame kindergarten book while the country was under attack, In fact please point out the fallacies point by point, that's right, in fact you cant.


----------



## stickyicky77 (Feb 14, 2008)

If i were the President and i was in that position i would have waited a few minutes to grasp the situation in my mind and try not to panic anyone, especially children in front of the media. 7 minutes so what!! What did you want him to do, run out of the room screaming we are under attack like a little girl in a panic?? And as far as Michael Moore you are really gullible to believe his bullshit Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911, Dave Kopel, Independence Institute and Spinsanity - One Moore stupid white man and Canadian doc-makers take on Michael Moore - CBC Arts | Film. All he cares about is $$$$$ not the truth.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 14, 2008)

stickyicky77 said:


> If i were the President and i was in that position i would have waited a few minutes to grasp the situation in my mind and try not to panic anyone, especially children in front of the media. 7 minutes so what!! What did you want him to do, run out of the room screaming we are under attack like a little girl in a panic?? And as far as Michael Moore you are really gullible to believe his bullshit Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911, Dave Kopel, Independence Institute and Spinsanity - One Moore stupid white man and Canadian doc-makers take on Michael Moore - CBC Arts | Film. All he cares about is $$$$$ not the truth.


I guess I'm like everyone else, well maybe not like you, but I always take these diatribes with a little grain of salt, If there were 59 deciets, I'll wager there were a lot more facts. Plus these debunkers have an agenda and their "Facts" are just as suseptable to deciet as Moores, so I guess you'll just have to believe what you will and I'll believe what I will. There is no secret on this site that I despise Bush-Cheney and all the foul things they've done in the last 7 years, and no amount of biased cut and paste is going to change my mind.


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

explain what they have done that you dont like in the last seven years. I personally know that most politicians are hypocrites. I despised bill clinton during his terms because despite what everyone thinks about his terms he didnt do shit. In fact information was released a while ago saying that the attack of 911 was planned and known about during the end of clintons second term. Any one remember when that bastard blew up a factory in the middle east saying there were weapons of great consequence meanwhile when they actually investigated it, found out that it was just a normal everyday production factory. A very good public speaker and funny (seen him speak) he took credit for alot of things that he really had nothing to do with. Such as the economy. Anyone who knows a little bit about it knows that a prosperous economy comes from cutting interest rates. whose in charge of that......Well during clintons days it was the same man since nixon. Greenspan. people have to understand decisions are deeper then the figure head behind them. All politicians are corrupt. If politicians were honest people who would we have to hate.... Corruptions everywhere but i dont think conspiracy is.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 14, 2008)

vertise said:


> explain what they have done that you dont like in the last seven years. I personally know that most politicians are hypocrites. I despised bill clinton during his terms because despite what everyone thinks about his terms he didnt do shit. In fact information was released a while ago saying that the attack of 911 was planned and known about during the end of clintons second term. Any one remember when that bastard blew up a factory in the middle east saying there were weapons of great consequence meanwhile when they actually investigated it, found out that it was just a normal everyday production factory. A very good public speaker and funny (seen him speak) he took credit for alot of things that he really had nothing to do with. Such as the economy. Anyone who knows a little bit about it knows that a prosperous economy comes from cutting interest rates. whose in charge of that......Well during clintons days it was the same man since nixon. Greenspan. people have to understand decisions are deeper then the figure head behind them. All politicians are corrupt. If politicians were honest people who would we have to hate.... Corruptions everywhere but i dont think conspiracy is.


I mean, you actually need a list of the Bush atrocities. Have you been asleep for the past seven years., I can see that this conversation is going nowhere. You just believe what you want and I'll do the same. BTW I think the clinton years were the best 8 years since I've been an adult, so I don't see any positive energy in this exchange, Bye-Bye.


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

your obviously close minded. One of those the media hates bush i hate bush the media loves clinton i love clinton. offer some things that clinton did that were succesful. I mean giving his wife the job of reworking healthcare was such a success (actually its known as one of the clintons biggest failures, no one even attempted to put it into affect cause it was such a failure just on paper. 

here is a vid of your favorite person respecting one of the USA's greatest civil rights activist YouTube - Bill Clinton Falls Asleep During Martin Luther King Speech


----------



## medicineman (Feb 14, 2008)

vertise said:


> your obviously close minded. One of those the media hates bush i hate bush the media loves clinton i love clinton. offer some things that clinton did that were succesful. I mean giving his wife the job of reworking healthcare was such a success (actually its known as one of the clintons biggest failures, no one even attempted to put it into affect cause it was such a failure just on paper.
> 
> here is a vid of your favorite person respecting one of the USA's greatest civil rights activist YouTube - Bill Clinton Falls Asleep During Martin Luther King Speech


I don't have time for BC haters like you, grow the fuck up.


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

your really that close minded that you cant respond ive done nothing to attack you and you say i should grow the fuck up. You got to be kidding me. Its ignorant people like you who make our society dumb. try using what little brains you may have left to offer any opinion. Your just a big bull shitter cant back up your own thoughts. lay of the tree boy, you need a while to clear the shit out of your head. Also i like how you say you cant waist time dealing with BC haters, why cause your busy schedual requires you post on a different thread


----------



## medicineman (Feb 14, 2008)

vertise said:


> your really that close minded that you cant respond ive done nothing to attack you and you say i should grow the fuck up. You got to be kidding me. Its ignorant people like you who make our society dumb. try using what little brains you may have left to offer any opinion. Your just a big bull shitter cant back up your own thoughts. lay of the tree boy, you need a while to clear the shit out of your head. Also i like how you say you cant waist time dealing with BC haters, why cause your busy schedual requires you post on a different thread


.No it gives me a headache when I deal with Dumbfucks!! And You my friend have all the qualities. Bill Clinton haters are sexually repressed puritanical mopes, and I won't waste my time on those types of people. Did Clinton make some mistakes, sure, but he was not the evil bastard you haters make him out to be, and compared to bush, he was almost Christlike.


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

Lol, wow intelligent remarks. You cant back up anything you say, all you got are insults lol. I try to avoid those remarks cause i know what i am talking about is my own opinion thats why i dont rely on what one may consider a cheap shot to get a point across. Your definitely one of those people who cant talk about politics because you know nothing about it. I take your comments like any other narrow minded persons comments. As a indicator of your intelligence. seriously lay of the weed for a while. you will be able to remember other words that are used to communicate, rather then the curse words. Hey you may even remember why you think Clinton was a good president. In doing so you may even find yourself sounding intelligent, and able to make the remarks you do and have the means to back them up. enough of the verbal vomit


----------



## medicineman (Feb 14, 2008)

vertise said:


> Lol, wow intelligent remarks. You cant back up anything you say, all you got are insults lol. I try to avoid those remarks cause i know what i am talking about is my own opinion thats why i dont rely on what one may consider a cheap shot to get a point across. Your definitely one of those people who cant talk about politics because you know nothing about it. I take your comments like any other narrow minded persons comments. As a indicator of your intelligence. seriously lay of the weed for a while. you will be able to remember other words that are used to communicate, rather then the curse words. Hey you may even remember why you think Clinton was a good president. In doing so you may even find yourself sounding intelligent, and able to make the remarks you do and have the means to back them up. enough of the verbal vomit


Nah, you've insulted me enough for one day, come back tomorrow and try again. BTW I don't smoke weed, makes me paranoid, something happened when I got into Coke, it changed my high on weed. I used to love weed, but it just doesn't work for me now. BTW my intelligence is just fine, I just don't like wasting it on haters.


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

HMMM....yea you said it, waste of time dealing with a hater with no other response but that. Also not to be a dick, this is a total not dick comment so please dont take it as one, coke is a bad bad thing. I do understand the paranoia that comes from tree and obviously it to can be considered a unhealthy thing for both mind and body but i have known a few people in my day whose coke habits inhibited their lives to much. Can easily affect your health much faster then the other recreational drugs out there. Stay stray of stuff that goes up your nose


----------



## Inneedofbuds (Feb 14, 2008)

I'm just practicing posting a picture here... sorry...\

sweet, it worked


----------



## vertise (Feb 14, 2008)

funny pic dont know why it is just very funny


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 15, 2008)

avlon06 said:


> do you really think that the big bad corporations are out there to control us and are controlling the government? You need to lay off the weed you are getting paranoid


What planet are you on? Spying on Americans ... data mining ... fraud ... the list is long ... maybe if you put down the weed and start reading the real news you wouldn't be lost ... completely lost ... 



stickyicky77 said:


> If i were the President and i was in that position i would have waited a few minutes to grasp the situation in my mind and try not to panic anyone, especially children in front of the media. 7 minutes so what!! What did you want him to do, run out of the room screaming we are under attack like a little girl in a panic??


Bullshit ... asshole knew before he walked into that school the plane hit the first building ... and why the fuck didn't the dogs bark? How the hell did the SS know that the *illegitimate* bush WASN'T a target? Answer that!

Why didn't they rush him to a secure location ... when the first plane hit ... there's no excuse after the second hit ... 

So your theory is wracked ...



vertise said:


> explain what they have done that you dont like in the last seven years. ... people have to understand decisions are deeper then the figure head behind them. All politicians are corrupt. If politicians were honest people who would we have to hate.... Corruptions everywhere but i dont think conspiracy is.


Please ... with the list I have posted on the crimes committed by this *illegitimate* regime ... 
... wake up ...


----------



## vertise (Feb 15, 2008)

You must be one of those bush is a dictator. How can you comment on why didnt the secret service hide bush. The attacks were random and it was easy to see that. How do you know what the secret service knew. Your comment is ignorant. Our presidents throughout history just like other world leaders have made desicions that people think are wrong or stupid but they dont grasp that there are reasons why these decisions are made. You dont know the reasoning, you can only assume. Your so called waking up is your opinion, i dont need to wake up to your Conspiracy theory. You cant say that your opinions are anything but that.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 15, 2008)

vertise said:


> You must be one of those bush is a dictator. How can you comment on why didnt the secret service hide bush. The attacks were random and it was easy to see that. How do you know what the secret service knew. Your comment is ignorant. Our presidents throughout history just like other world leaders have made desicions that people think are wrong or stupid but they dont grasp that there are reasons why these decisions are made. You dont know the reasoning, you can only assume. Your so called waking up is your opinion, i dont need to wake up to your Conspiracy theory. You cant say that your opinions are anything but that.


You my friend have H.I.S. syndrome, (Head IN Sand). You must be a Bush insider as that is all that are still sticking up for the asshole. Are you related like a kissing cousin or some other backwoods relative or, are you just stupid? I'd give you the relative thing, we all know it's family first, But my antennae are telling me you have H.I.S syndrome or the dreaded H.I.A. syndrome. Let's turn it around and you tell us what good things the Bush regime have done in the last 7 years, yeah I thought so, no deal eh.


----------



## vertise (Feb 15, 2008)

medicineman said:


> You my friend have H.I.S. syndrome, (Head IN Sand). You must be a Bush insider as that is all that are still sticking up for the asshole. Are you related like a kissing cousin or some other backwoods relative or, are you just stupid? I'd give you the relative thing, we all know it's family first, But my antennae are telling me you have H.I.S syndrome or the dreaded H.I.A. syndrome. Let's turn it around and you tell us what good things the Bush regime have done in the last 7 years, yeah I thought so, no deal eh.


Lay off the cocaine man your an idiot. Dont you realize that entire thing was an insult with nothing that answers my question. List some things is what i asked you to do. But you cant do it, answer my question first then i will answer yours. Seriously lay off the coke you seem to be high strung and your thinking is clouded. Usually someone backs there thoughts up with something. How long did you spend thinking of H.I.S. I already voiced my oppinion and backed up why i didnt like clinton. You said nothing at all not one thing or reason why you liked clinton and why you dont like bush. Also the coke seems to be rushing you. You cant say back it up and then say thought so in the same message remember coke head your on a forum i need time to actually knnow you posted something before i can answer. You should def switch back to weed cause your thoughts are a mile in front of your mouth.


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 15, 2008)

medicineman said:


> You my friend have H.I.S. syndrome, (Head IN Sand). You must be a Bush insider as that is all that are still sticking up for the asshole. Are you related like a kissing cousin or some other backwoods relative or, are you just stupid? I'd give you the relative thing, we all know it's family first, But my antennae are telling me you have H.I.S syndrome or the dreaded H.I.A. syndrome. Let's turn it around and you tell us what good things the Bush regime have done in the last 7 years, yeah I thought so, no deal eh.


You read an idea you like and you use it, huh? Not the first time. I'm honored, again.


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 15, 2008)

Hey Med ... Do you abuse the people around you in your "real" life? Just wondering ...

Vi


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 15, 2008)

vertise said:


> You must be one of those bush is a dictator. How can you comment on why didnt the secret service hide bush. The attacks were random and it was easy to see that. How do you know what the secret service knew. Your comment is ignorant. Our presidents throughout history just like other world leaders have made desicions that people think are wrong or stupid but they dont grasp that there are reasons why these decisions are made. You dont know the reasoning, you can only assume. Your so called waking up is your opinion, i dont need to wake up to your Conspiracy theory. You cant say that your opinions are anything but that.




... and you must be one of those *illegitimate* bush ass kissers ... your comment is stupid ... why didn't the SS react ... that is their job ... how the fuck did they know the attacks were random ... dummy ... which proves my point about why didn't the dogs bark ... yeah ... he made the important decision to stay and read ... 
... it's not a theory ... it's a conspiracy ... and we've posted more than theories ... we've posted facts that you or the government can't explain .... 
... so if you what to continue to sleep at the wheel ... be my guess ... you won't be missed.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 15, 2008)

9/11 Coincidences (Part Nine) 

Something for your viewing enjoyment this Friday night ... and everything's alright ...


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 15, 2008)

medicineman said:


> .No it gives me a headache when I deal with Dumbfucks!! And You my friend have all the qualities. Bill Clinton haters are sexually repressed puritanical mopes, and I won't waste my time on those types of people. Did Clinton make some mistakes, sure, but he was not the evil bastard you haters make him out to be, and compared to bush, he was almost Christlike.


You are wrong. Bubba and Butch are BOTH evil bastards. Traitors. Both deserve a hangmans' noose.


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 15, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> ... and you must be one of those *illegitimate* bush ass kissers ... your comment is stupid ... why didn't the SS react ... that is their job ... how the fuck did they know the attacks were random ... dummy ... which proves my point about why didn't the dogs bark ... yeah ... he made the important decision to stay and read ...
> ... it's not a theory ... it's a conspiracy ... and we've posted more than theories ... we've posted facts that you or the government can't explain ....
> ... so if you what to continue to sleep at the wheel ... be my guess ... you won't be missed.


 
Hey sloth! Find a school child who can read. Pay him to read the autobiography of Dennis McCarthy to you. Perhaps then you might be able to understand the roll of the United States Secret Service. 

Until then, shut your stupid pie hole.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 15, 2008)

you girls need to mellow out ....


----------



## vertise (Feb 15, 2008)

passions good


----------



## bongspit (Feb 15, 2008)

vertise said:


> passions good


what would you know about passion dick?


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 15, 2008)

bongspit said:


> what would you know about passion dick?


What the hells "passion dick"? Never mind, I don't think I want to know.


----------



## vertise (Feb 15, 2008)

Passion dick is his dildo. if he can find it. Also enjoy your bipolar attitude. "Guys need to mellow out" / "What do you know about passion dick"


----------



## bongspit (Feb 15, 2008)

maybe I should not have stopped taking my meds...


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 15, 2008)

vertise said:


> Passion dick is his dildo. if he can find it. Also enjoy your bipolar attitude. "Guys need to mellow out" / "What do you know about passion dick"


hahahahahahahahaah


----------



## bongspit (Feb 15, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> What the hells "passion dick"? Never mind, I don't think I want to know.


it's sort of like that thing you have stuck up your ass...only bigger...


----------



## vertise (Feb 15, 2008)

wow you have a bigger dildo then everyone else no need to continue


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 15, 2008)

bongspit said:


> what would you know about passion dick?


Vertise, I don't think you understand. BOFDL BongSpit is asking you if you know anything about his missing dildo, "Passion Dick". I'll tell you honestly now, BS, I know nothing of its' disappearance. 



bongspit said:


> it's sort of like that thing you have stuck up your ass...only bigger...



Here's the description of "Passion Dick", Vertise. Keep your eyes peeled. Not for "Passion Dick", but for BongSpit. He's really upset about this and he seems to have implicated you.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 15, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Vertise, I don't think you understand. BOFDL BongSpit is asking you if you know anything about his missing dildo, "Passion Dick". I'll tell you honestly now, BS, I know nothing of its' disappearance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol...you are such a fucking idiot...


----------



## vertise (Feb 15, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Vertise, I don't think you understand. BOFDL BongSpit is asking you if you know anything about his missing dildo, "Passion Dick". I'll tell you honestly now, BS, I know nothing of its' disappearance.
> 
> 
> Here's the description of "Passion Dick", Vertise. Keep your eyes peeled. Not for "Passion Dick", but for BongSpit. He's really upset about this and he seems to have implicated you.
> ...


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 15, 2008)

bongspit said:


> lol...you are such a fucking idiot...


* Thanks guy.*


----------



## ccodiane (Feb 15, 2008)

Thanks Guy.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 16, 2008)

mockingbird131313 said:


> Hey sloth! Find a school child who can read. Pay him to read the autobiography of Dennis McCarthy to you. Perhaps then you might be able to understand the roll of the United States Secret Service.
> 
> Until then, shut your stupid pie hole.


Hey polly I got a better idea ... you get the kid to read to you why the SS didn't react when they should have ... until then ... eat your fucking crackers and try not to be too much of a bushparrot asshole ... I know that hard for you to do ......


----------



## Dankdude (Feb 16, 2008)

Willie Nelson Believes that it's an inside Job too.....


----------



## bongspit (Feb 16, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Thanks Guy.


your welcome....


----------



## medicineman (Feb 16, 2008)

Dankdude said:


> Willie Nelson Believes that it's an inside Job too.....


Hey Dank, Weve inherited a few new nutjobs since you left, the biggest one you might as well ignore, ccodiane is just a mean spirited troll. I'm sure you can stomp him with facts, but facts bounce off him like water off a ducks back. Welcome back. Is construction slowing down on OK. or are you doing allright?


----------



## Dankdude (Feb 16, 2008)

yeah I'm ok... I'm out of smoke and there is none to be had around here.... but otherwise I'm ok.


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 16, 2008)

Dankdude said:


> yeah I'm ok... I'm out of smoke and there is none to be had around here.... but otherwise I'm ok.


I'd send you some, but you have me on Ignore. 

Vi

PS: Nice to have the Dankster back.


----------



## Dankdude (Feb 16, 2008)

I took you off ignore before my computer took a crap Vi.


----------



## medicineman (Feb 16, 2008)

Dankdude said:


> yeah I'm ok... I'm out of smoke and there is none to be had around here.... but otherwise I'm ok.


Geeze, too bad we don't live close, I've got 10 Ozs of WW & purple haze, love to give you an oz, but I'm paranoid of shipping, pretty stinky stuff. If you're in the area, PM me and I'll make it happen, Hate to see you get busted or have the dogs sniff it out and lose it. Seeds ok but an OZ, no way.


----------



## ViRedd (Feb 16, 2008)

Med ...

PM me for shipping instructions. 

Vi


----------



## medicineman (Feb 16, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> Med ...
> 
> PM me for shipping instructions.
> 
> Vi


  I don't think so.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 16, 2008)

he is faking...I need it whole lot worse than he does....


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 16, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> Hey polly I got a better idea ... you get the kid to read to you why the SS didn't react when they should have ... until then ... eat your fucking crackers and try not to be too much of a bushparrot asshole ... I know that hard for you to do ......










hey sloth, scrap off the moss!
The United States Secret Service have one job; Protect the President. Anything else you think of has little consequence.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 17, 2008)

See folks ... told ya it was hard for him to do ... Dumb ass parrot ... how the fuck did the SS know he wasn't a target ... if their job was to protect why didn't they do it ... 

here polly ... have another cracker ...


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 17, 2008)

sloth, the primary mission of the United States Secret Service is to: 
1. always assume the President and the first family are targets 
2. always assume the Vice-President and the second family are targets
3. always assume the Speaker of the House and her family are targets
4. always assume the Justices of the Supreme Court and their families are targets
5. always assume that Presidential candidates and their families are targets
6. protect the integrity of the currency of the USA.

Any questions sloth? Refer to the autobiography of Dennis McCarthy.


----------



## mexiblunt (Feb 17, 2008)

mockingbird131313 said:


> sloth, the primary mission of the United States Secret Service is to:
> 1. always assume the President and the first family are targets
> 2. always assume the Vice-President and the second family are targets
> 3. always assume the Speaker of the House and her family are targets
> ...


 
I think #6 has the most to do with this thread than 1-5, If your inclined to believe the 911 theories.


----------



## bongspit (Feb 17, 2008)

Today the secret services primary investigative mission is to safeguard the payment and financial systems of the United States. This has been historically accomplished through the enforcement of counterfeiting statutes to preserve the integrity of United States currency, coin and financial obligations.


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 17, 2008)

Based on what Agent McCarthy wrote, about 15 years ago, the priorities are about the order that was listed.

But, my real point was this, the dense sloth has some hysterical belief that the Secret Service had advance knowledge and acted in an unusual fashion. Because they somehow knew what was going to happen on 9-11. However, the Secret Service has only two missions: protection of the assignments (people) and protection of the currency.

They do, from time to time engage in other activities. But these two assignments are always their primary duties. So the net result is this. They did not deviate from assigned duties. Period. 

So someone, please read the autobiography to the sleepy sloth. Please. Then maybe the dense as a brick, smelly, fur-blob will understand.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2008)

mockingbird131313 said:


> the primary mission of the United States Secret Service is to:
> 1. always assume the President and the first family are targets
> 2. always assume the Vice-President and the second family are targets
> 3. always assume the Speaker of the House and her family are targets
> ...


Yeah ... polly ... are you naturally that stupid or do you work at it?

Folks this dumbass bushparrot proved my point ... if the SS is to alway assume the assholes are targets WHY DIDN'T THE DOGS BARK on 911? ... HOW THE FUCK DID THEY KNOW HE WASN'T A TARGET. Why didn't they do their job.







Polly want a cracker ...


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 18, 2008)

Sloth, you are TOOOOOOO dense to understand. All you are capable of is name calling rants. You are truly pathetic and I feel sorry for you. Please get professional help for your psychoses.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 19, 2008)

It takes one to know one don't it polly ... you're the pathetic one ... can't dispute any facts ... why ... because you can't .... you're so stupid even with the facts shoved up your ass you disregard it ... all you can do is call names ... that it ... that's the best you can do ... what a chump parrot.

But I truly enjoy showing the folks at home just what a pathetic bushparrot you are .... Loads of fun.


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 19, 2008)

sloth, it does NOT take a medical degree to understand that you are sick. Get some help.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 20, 2008)

Nor does it take a rocket scientist to see that you are a stupid bushparrot ... there's no help for the likes of you ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 29, 2008)

False Flag Prospects, 2008 

Isn't is interesting that the US and UK were having military exercise on the same day ... see snip ... 

The 9/11, 2001 attacks in the United States and the 7/7, 2005 attacks in the United Kingdom both have smoking guns proving that the mass murderers were not foreign terrorists but domestic tyrants. Each country's government was conducting military exercises that simulated the exact events that were to occur.

snip 

_"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Don't think these people won't do something like this again ... our government is behind 911 ... the deaths of 3000 innocent Americans means nothing to them.


Here another article ...

_FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

The timeline reveals that alleged hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi, who was aboard the United Airlines flight which crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, had booked a future flight to San Francisco.

There is just far too much shit implicating this government ... you really have to be super naive not to at least have questions ...  or asleep at the wheel ...


----------



## mockingbird131313 (Feb 29, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> False Flag Prospects, 2008
> 
> Isn't is interesting that the US and UK were having military exercise on the same day ... see snip ...
> 
> ...


 

SS,DD........


----------



## GrowRebel (Apr 7, 2008)

I always back up my statements ... unlike you bushies ... you just make shit up ...


----------



## GrowRebel (May 4, 2008)

... and let's not forget the greatest crime committed against the American people ... not to mention the Iraqi people and the Afghanistan people ... more evidence of 911 being an inside job ...

14 Structural Engineers Now Publicly Challenge Government's Explanation for Destruction of the World Trade Center







Meanwhile, the official body created by the government to study 9-11 openly admits they have no explanation for how the buildings came down. 



911 ... definitely an inside job ...


----------



## GrowRebel (May 4, 2008)

Government Itself Won't Swear To Official Theory of 9/11

Hummm .... I wonder why ... 

9/11 theorist not curtailing his researchJones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress to determine why and how the towers collapsed. The letter contained the following phrase: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." 
"That," Jones said, "really was progress. It made me believe we could talk with them." 
It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can't explain the collapse. And on its Web site, NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.


I'm still amazed at the people that believe those towers fell because of planes and fire ... and at free fall speed ... when similar structures with similar fires that burn much longer and much hotter fire didn't fall free fall style ... why is that?


911 was an inside job ...


----------



## We TaRdED (May 4, 2008)

how did i miss this thread? good stuff growrebel. +rep for spreading truth.

subscribed so i can post some of my interesting links at a later time and watch the rest of yours..
*
my only question is how are we going to inform the masses of sheeple that are ignorant to the truth and candidly dont want to take the time to self educate?*


----------



## GrowRebel (May 4, 2008)

Thanks We ... it's been on the back pages for a while ... I wasn't able to post links and pictures for couple of months ... found some more report I found interesting so I updated the thread ... I work to keep a log of all the war crimes committed by this *illegitimate* regime now in office and the elite ...

To answer your question the most I can do is put up information like this and hope it continues to spreads over the net ... this is our only means of informing the public ... I can't force people to listen, but I can put the info out and let them decide for themselves ...


----------



## We TaRdED (May 4, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> Good point. However, I went to see Moore's cut & paste propaganda job depicting 9-11 as an inside job, and as I arrived at the theater, there were jack-booted thugs dragging the theater manager out of the building by the hair and beating him mercilessly. These brown-shirted, jack booted thugs had arm bands with a "Bush Regime" logo imprinted on them. All those waiting in line to see the movie were detained for questioning and were subjected to body cavity searches. Lucky for me that I hadn't bought my ticket yet. Instead, I went over to the poster shop and bought a poster that said: "Corporate Power Rules!" The Bush thug guarding that door just nodded his approval.
> 
> Vi


either im really stoned or that is some crazy shit.... where the hell to you live(rhetorical question)... i think your full of shit redd... 

and if that really happened, your a wimp for getting a poster that said "corporate power rules"..


.


----------



## We TaRdED (May 4, 2008)

avlon06 said:


> I was just using him as an example, if these conspiracy theories were correct about and our government was as fucked up as they make it out to seem, i could see no one that posted 911 conspiracies or anythign similar to live very long, weather they just "disappear" or die suddenly it would happen if our government was that fucked up, but i do not believe that.


did you see how many security guards were in that vid?


----------



## We TaRdED (May 5, 2008)

YouTube - Alex Jones Smacks Down a 9/11 Kool-Aid Drinker

ENDGAME- ALEX JONES - Blueprint for Global Enslavement

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect - "How The Towers Fell" - Complete 2 Hour Presentation | 911Blogger.com

America: Freedom to Fascism - Director&#39;s Authorized Version

REVOLUTION March on D.C. - July 12th, 2008 - RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION for Feedom, Peace, and Prosperity - Ron Paul!

YouTube - 9/11: The Case for Controlled Demolition

YouTube - When History Repeats Itself 9/11 WTC Pentagon 911 Debunked

YouTube - 911 Proof of Planned Demolition Thermate Molten Steel

YouTube - 9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!

Esoteric Agenda - Sprword.com


----------



## Dopalicious (May 5, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Whether the government did it or not is really not the fundamental issue. The real issue is that so many people actually believe they did. That tells volumes about the state of our representative government.


I think it speaks more to the lowly IQ of Joe Six Pack.


----------



## GrowRebel (May 5, 2008)

Dopalicious said:


> I think it speaks more to the lowly IQ of Joe Six Pack.


There are more than "lowly IQ of Joe Six Pack" that believe 911 was an inside job and this thread support it.

Nice links We ...


----------



## We TaRdED (May 7, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> Nice links We ...


no problem bro...

check out this too... im not sure if all the information is true, but its interesting about what they say about building 7...

they said that because flight 93 missed building number 7, they blew wtc building 7 up because it was planted with bombs and to blow it up so the bombs would not be found!!

YouTube - Barack Obama is a ZIONIST ILLUMINATI part 1

YouTube - Barack Obama is a ZIONIST ILLUMINATI part 2


----------



## GrowRebel (May 19, 2008)

Rumsfeld: "Why Not another 911"

In a newly-released tape of a 2006 neocon luncheon meeting featuring former War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, attended by ex-military "message force multiplier" propaganda shills Lt. General Michael DeLong, David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, Robert H. Scales and others, Rumsfeld declared that the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the 'threats'" -- and need another 9/11.


----------



## GrowRebel (May 19, 2008)

another report on the war criminal Rumsfeld ... people they are planning another 911 ... are you going to fall for this false flag attack too?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/051608_rumsfeld_tape.htm[URL="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/051608_rumsfeld_tape.htm"]Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo-Con Agenda[/url]
Shocking excerpts of confidential recordings recently released under the Freedom of Information Act feature former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America. The tape also includes a conversation where Rumsfeld and the military analysts agree on the possible necessity of installing a brutal dictator in Iraq to oversee U.S. interests.


There is NO DOUBT in my mind that these people are behind the false flag 911 operation to increase their power ... now they are planning another one ... will you fall for this one too?


----------



## GrowRebel (May 19, 2008)

more ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y&feature=email
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y&feature=email"]9/11 Coincidences (Part Eight) UPDATE[/url]
9/11 Coincidences (Part Eight) was removed by YouTube for no apparent reason.

Better check this one out fast ... before they take it down ...


----------



## We TaRdED (May 20, 2008)

9/11 We Know - Watch 911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions (1 of 3)

9/11 We Know - Watch 911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions (2 of 3)

9/11 We Know - Watch 911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions (3 of 3)

Here's some good ones growrebel!


----------



## Dankdude (May 20, 2008)

Yes sir.......


----------



## Dankdude (May 20, 2008)




----------



## Dankdude (May 20, 2008)

Painful Deceptions


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

Thanks guys ... from the reports I have seen the entire world knows that 911 was a false flag operation committed by the USA and Israel ... looks like the USA is the only country that doesn't know the truth on a national level ... here are more reports on the subject ... 

[URL="http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3789-george-w-bush-authorized-911-attacks-says-government-insider.html"]George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider[/url]
"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton

SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.

Here another report ... there are tons of them ... anyone that believe the government is not behind this is just plain 

[URL="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2240510.htm"]Unanswered 9/11 questions[/url]
At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.

Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed. 

Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass above. 


There is no doubt in my mind that 911 was an inside job ...


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

Dankdude said:


> Painful Deceptions


 Good film ... like so many of the documentaries on the lies the government put out concerning 911 ... no way on God's green earth could NORAD let FOUR planes get pass them ... no way ... and no way could those buildings fall in 15 second due to fire or plane crash ... no way ... 

Thank for the link. Plenty of evidence in this thread and the other 911 thread to clear show the government is involved. Only the stupid believe otherwise ...


----------



## Dankdude (May 21, 2008)

Your Welcome....


----------



## VTXDave (May 21, 2008)

So the tape shown on Al Jazeera in 2004 that shows OBL admitting responsibility for the attack is a fraud?


----------



## We TaRdED (May 21, 2008)

VTXDave said:


> So the tape shown on Al Jazeera in 2004 that shows OBL admitting responsibility for the attack is a fraud?


Your a jokester Dave.... right? ~lol~ You haven't noticed the difference in the guys face between the 'real' OBL and the one admitting responsibility? Not to mention that that guy was writing with the wrong hand and was wearing jewelery that is apparently forbidden in the Islam culture....


----------



## VTXDave (May 21, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> Your a jokester Dave.... right? ~lol~ You haven't noticed the difference in the guys face between the 'real' OBL and the one admitting responsibility? Not to mention that that guy was writing with the wrong hand and was wearing jewelery that is apparently forbidden in the Islam culture....


No I'm not joking We. I don't buy into the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing because I've have researched extensively US involvement dating back to WWI. Everything OBL says regarding why they attacked us makes perfect sense. Here's a pic from that video...I see no jewelry. It looks like OBL to me and do keep in mind that the tape I've mentioned was released to and aired on Al Jazeera...not released to any US based media outlet...






Bush win no awards w/ me, but I don't buy into anything that places the blame solely on the Bush Administration.

I'd suggest you check out "The Road to 9/11" produced by National Geographic for a more objective video. Did you know that plans for 9/11 were confiscated by Manila (Philippines) authorities back in 1995 and given to the FBI? The FBI chose not to share any of this information as they essentially discounted the information. I implore you to check out the documentary.


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

VTXDave said:


> So the tape shown on Al Jazeera in 2004 that shows OBL admitting responsibility for the attack is a fraud?


 ...yep ... the real Bin Laden stated right after the attack that he had nothing to do with it ... that tape with the confession was manufactured by the *illegitimate* bush regime ... 

*The Fake 2001 bin Laden
Video Tape*

 Hell the FBI doesn't have him listed as being responsible either ... 

FBI says, No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

so yep ... the video and confession is a lie and fake ...


----------



## ZenMaster (May 21, 2008)

You keep bumping your own damn threads over and over. Do you have a life?


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

VTXDave said:


> No I'm not joking We. I don't buy into the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing because I've have researched extensively US involvement dating back to WWI. Everything OBL says regarding why they attacked us makes perfect sense. Here's a pic from that video...I see no jewelry. It looks like OBL to me and do keep in mind that the tape I've mentioned was released to and aired on Al Jazeera...not released to any US based media outlet...


 That's not Bin Laden ... it's obvious ... and notice how all the fake videos are grainy ...

Here are three pictures with the real Bin Laden and one is a one of the many fake Bin Ladens the *illegitimate* bush regime has used .... guess which one ...


----------



## VTXDave (May 21, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> ...yep ... the real Bin Laden stated right after the attack that he had nothing to do with it ... that tape with the confession was manufactured by the *illegitimate* bush regime ...
> 
> *The Fake 2001 bin Laden
> Video Tape*
> ...


Please reread my initial post Growrebel...And how do you refute the plans found on a laptop owned by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (3rd in rank in Al Qaeda at the time). when it was confiscated by Manila authorities. I beg you to check your sources and view multiple sources as I do. Go rent Nat'l Geo's "Road to 9/11".

How much do you know about Al Qaeda? Why do they hate us and why did OBL issue a Fatwah against us?


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> You keep bumping your own damn threads over and over. Do you have a life?


Do you? Apparently not ... if you don't like looking at truth you CAN'T dispute then get the hell out of my thread dumbass ...


----------



## arabmobster (May 21, 2008)

its all a lie 
how come norad didnt stop the pains, they've intercepted hijacked plans 67 times prior to sept 11 
YouTube - 9/11 Zionist Job


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

VTXDave said:


> Please reread my initial post Growrebel...And how do you refute the plans found on a laptop owned by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (3rd in rank in Al Qaeda at the time). when it was confiscated by Manila authorities. I beg you to check your sources and view multiple sources as I do. Go rent Nat'l Geo's "Road to 9/11".
> 
> How much do you know about Al Qaeda? Why do they hate us and why did OBL issue a Fatwah against us?


 and what source do you have of this laptop claim? Just bullshit stories put out by the *illegitimate* bush regime ... 

... how much do I know about Al Qaeda ... enough ...

*Fake Al Qaeda*
"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda". So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, "The Toilet"?


----------



## ZenMaster (May 21, 2008)

I've been through this already, I have not the time nor the inclination to refute the drivel you spout out because you utterly ignore my arguments. So I just save myself some time and tell you to quit bumping your failed threads over and over. You love to be the center of attention with your conspiracy nonsense and when you are not on the top 5 threads of the forum you make sure to bump them with more bullshit from you *illegitimate *websites. I hope you grow up one day, Grow.


----------



## arabmobster (May 21, 2008)

yup thats what alquaada means in arabic toilet and the funny thing is noone ever heard of them until sept 11 happened and no one stil nows who they are in the mideast


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

arabmobster said:


> its all a lie
> how come norad didnt stop the pains, they've intercepted hijacked plans 67 times prior to sept 11
> YouTube - 9/11 Zionist Job


EXACTLY ... no way can you convince me four planes can get through our defenses when never in our history has something like that ever happen ... one maybe ... but not fucking four!


----------



## arabmobster (May 21, 2008)

and whats with tower 7 how did that come down 3 blocks away from the twin towers
i think its called controlled demolotion


----------



## GrowRebel (May 21, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> I've been through this already, I have not the time nor the inclination to refute the drivel you spout out because you utterly ignore my arguments. So I just save myself some time and tell you to quit bumping your failed threads over and over. You love to be the center of attention with your conspiracy nonsense and when you are not on the top 5 threads of the forum you make sure to bump them with more bullshit from you *illegitimate *websites. I hope you grow up one day, Grow.


Yeah .. you been through it alright .... the same old bullshit about how you don't have time for drivel ... yeah ... it's easier to spout that bullshit about not having the time since you CAN'T ... never have and never will ... dispute *ANY of the FACTS* I post with links in my post ... if you what to be a dumb ass all you life so be it ... if you don't like my thread then why do you read them dumb ass? Wow fauxnews viewers are truly stupid ... and I hope someday you get some a reasonable amount of intelligence. But for now you are pretty pathetic ...


----------



## We TaRdED (May 21, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> I've been through this already, I have not the time nor the inclination to refute the drivel you spout out because you utterly ignore my arguments. So I just save myself some time and tell you to quit bumping your failed threads over and over. You love to be the center of attention with your conspiracy nonsense and when you are not on the top 5 threads of the forum you make sure to bump them with more bullshit from you *illegitimate *websites. I hope you grow up one day, Grow.


Zen why don't you go STFU and do as GR said, "shut up and leave if you don't want to partake". No one would tell you to stop bumping a thread saying how you want to suck GWB's kak. I mean this in the nicest way possible- Go fock yourself. 

Honestly, who are you to say who can bump a thread? Are you honestly that hubris?


----------



## arabmobster (May 21, 2008)

heres a video on norad dik cheney took control of it 2 weeks before sept 11 and they did stimulation flights on the twin towers and pentagon , coincidence i think not

YouTube - Dick Cheney commanded NORAD


----------



## ZenMaster (May 21, 2008)

Thats hilarious that you call these "facts". These "facts" cannot be proven. Any of them. All you have is conspiracies, until proven, they are not creditable.


----------



## arabmobster (May 21, 2008)

ur like a sheep zen cant think for urself just follow the rest of ur buddies of the bridge or into iraq to stop wmd's getting into the wrong hands


----------



## ZenMaster (May 21, 2008)

arabmobster said:


> ur like a sheep zen cant think for urself just follow the rest of ur buddies of the bridge or into iraq to stop wmd's getting into the wrong hands


lol..........


----------



## VTXDave (May 21, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> and what source do you have of this laptop claim? Just bullshit stories put out by the *illegitimate* bush regime ...


I already provided you the opportunity to view "The Road to 9/11". It's a 4 hour documentary that is well worth anyone's time to check out. But here's another...
CNN.com - Philippines: U.S. missed 9/11 clues years ago - Jul. 26, 2003


> Philippine authorities said the United States did not take their information seriously. The documents come on the heels of a congressional report that indicates the U.S. intelligence community missed several clues that could have added up to the terrorist plot before the attacks....
> Authorities searching Yousef's laptop computer found detailed plans to blow up the airliners -- including flight numbers and schedules, and bombmaking formulas.


You see, what you're missing here is that I "understand" the "why". I understand "why" they did it. The US is responsible for the 9/11 attack, but it goes back way longer than you think. Want more? I'd recommend reading up on the Balfour Declaration and Sykes-Picot Agreement.


----------



## VTXDave (May 21, 2008)

Well apparently I'm dealing with people who like to name-call others instead of debate. Goodbye.


----------



## ZenMaster (May 21, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> Zen why don't you go STFU and do as GR said, "shut up and leave if you don't want to partake". No one would tell you to stop bumping a thread saying how you want to suck GWB's kak. I mean this in the nicest way possible- Go fock yourself.
> 
> Honestly, who are you to say who can bump a thread? Are you honestly that hubris?


...

We Tarded-

Listen kid, I can say stop bumping a thread because its nothing more than cries of attention, the only reason you are defending grow is because you are both conspiracy wacko's. I have partaked in Grow's threads and I must say the debate I got in return was most disappointing, so I know nothing I refute can be taken seriously by this person so honestly I am no longer trying to reason with Grow. I just say quit being an attention whore. So, in return, unless you know my past efforts here, go fuck yourself.


----------



## VTXDave (May 22, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> Zen why don't you go STFU and do as GR said, "shut up and leave if you don't want to partake". No one would tell you to stop bumping a thread saying how you want to suck GWB's kak. I mean this in the nicest way possible- Go fock yourself.


 Hmm...Gotta tell ya We...I'm a bit surprised (and somewhat disappointed) by your response. Zen didn't direct any attack toward you here and you immediately jumped in with a STFU.


----------



## We TaRdED (May 22, 2008)

I thought you were a Christian? What kind of Christian calls people wakos and tells to to stop bumping their own thread! Its her thread, and she can do w/e she wants. Are you a mod? What gives you the authority or balls to tell someone what they can and can not do to their thread? You don't own this place, you are not her parent/authority. So go start your own thread explaining why 911 was not an inside job and see how you would like it if someone said "hey can you stop putting info into your own thread, because I think your an attention whore".. Dude, you need to learn some manners and have some respect. I'm sorry for getting upset you with, but you need to understand your place. You know I respect your opinions no matter what nonsense you say, but when you start to pull stuff like this than, ITS SIMPLY UNEXCEPTABLE. 



ZenMaster said:


> ...
> 
> We Tarded-
> 
> Listen kid, I can say stop bumping a thread because its nothing more than cries of attention, the only reason you are defending grow is because you are both conspiracy wacko's. I have partaked in Grow's threads and I must say the debate I got in return was most disappointing, so I know nothing I refute can be taken seriously by this person so honestly I am no longer trying to reason with Grow. I just say quit being an attention whore. So, in return, unless you know my past efforts here, go fuck yourself.


----------



## We TaRdED (May 22, 2008)

VTXDave said:


> Hmm...Gotta tell ya We...I'm a bit surprised (and somewhat disappointed) by your response. Zen didn't direct any attack toward you here and you immediately jumped in with a STFU.


Right, I'm always reserved and polite(95% of the time anyways). But Zenmaster thinks hes some kind of internet bully sometimes, almost like he is a mod or something. He once told me that I could not bump an old thread. Who the hell is he to say who can post into certain threads? He thinks he is some kind of RIU political Nazi or something. Anyone is welcome to post whenever, whatever(no nudity though ) and wherever they want, unless the mod says differently!!


----------



## ZenMaster (May 22, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> I thought you were a Christian? What kind of Christian calls people wakos and tells to to stop bumping their own thread! Its her thread, and she can do w/e she wants. Are you a mod? What gives you the authority or balls to tell someone what they can and can not do to their thread? You don't own this place, you are not her parent/authority. So go start your own thread explaining why 911 was not an inside job and see how you would like it if someone said "hey can you stop putting info into your own thread, because I think your an attention whore".. Dude, you need to learn some manners and have some respect. I'm sorry for getting upset you with, but you need to understand your place. You know I respect your opinions no matter what nonsense you say, but when you start to pull stuff like this than, ITS SIMPLY UNEXCEPTABLE.


You obviously didn't read what I just said.

I do not think it is right to bump your own thread if your not going to listen to conflicting data or arguments. Grow is bumping them (all of them) to be the center of attention, and I will call anyone out on this. No, I am not a mod, but I feel like I have the responsibility to bitch if someone bumps a thread but won't debate (civilly). You need to learn some damn etiquette on these forums dude. I don't bump my old shit over and over, I don't think anyone should. And by the way, I have explained why I do not think 9/11 was not an inside job, and do you know what I got in response? It had something to do with "bwahahas" and the word "bush parrot". Yeah.


----------



## We TaRdED (May 22, 2008)

Just a couple quick things Zen. 

GR could be using RIU as a library for her research on 911. Maybe she is using RIU as a place for her to conveniently bookmark her links, and if someone else is interested than they have a plethora of conspiracy "theories" to enjoy.

Speaking of etiquette haven't you learned about not being rude. People post stupid shit on here all the time like "i just peed on my plant to give it nitrogen", so what do I do you might wonder... I simply don't spend my time on reading the nonsense. You have that option too.. 

If you know you can't debate 'civilly' with GR than learn your lessen and dont talk to her. Simple as that, I know your a smart guy Zen- so use your head, dude.


----------



## GrowRebel (May 22, 2008)

The Zen punk is incapable of any civil debate because he has no facts to dispute the facts I post ... if you look at any of the threads with his empty comments you will see he has NEVER been able to dispute ANY of the FACTS I have posted ... the best he can come up with is ... "it's a liberal site" ..."it's not credible" ... it's a waste of my time" ... or "you lose" ... the same bullshit ... and when he did submit some bullshit from fauxnews I slammed his ass with the facts showing to the folks at home that he and fauxnews was full of shit ... that's why he doesn't like to see my threads ... because they make him look like a complete and total ass ...and proves beyond a doubt that his can't dispute the facts ...


----------



## arabmobster (May 22, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> I thought you were a Christian? What kind of Christian calls people wakos and tells to to stop bumping their own thread! Its her thread, and she can do w/e she wants.
> 
> 
> > i dont think religion has anything todo with it ,u can be whatever relegion whatever color and still have respect for ppl and get along just fine,
> > zen just aint got none of that hes hard headed and just wants to deny all the facts , hes basically a grade 1 kid stuborn and wants his lolipop no matter what even though hes guna eat dinner in a couple mins. like i said ealier u should be in iraq looking for wmd


----------



## GrowRebel (May 30, 2008)

Too bad the largest paper in the states isn't asking the same question ... and this isn't new it came out back in 2006 ... looks like the US is the only one that won't print the truth about 911 being an inside job ... this report is in German below is the translation ... 

[URL="http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057"]Largest Swiss Newspaper Asks if Bush Was Behind 9/11[/URL]
By Elie Peter - Sept 15, 2006, BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland 

(translated from German into English, but not yet published online in English) 
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed themm. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions. 
"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004. 
The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication". 
Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear." 
Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory". 
"There are three theories, which we should treat equally": 
1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks. 
2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars. 
3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services. 
Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 [Operation Northwood] that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests." As for Ganser and Stahel: "We only ask questions." 

911 was an inside job ...


----------



## arabmobster (May 31, 2008)

the swiss are intelectuals , they know the truth when they c it


----------



## GrowRebel (May 31, 2008)

Japan too ... and I'm sure if I look it up there are other countries as well that don't buy the bullshit ... check it ...

Councilor Fujita Questions 9/11 Part 1

Councilor Fujita Questions 9/11 Part 2

 ... and I want to post this again ... has a lot of fact that proof 911 was a inside job ... you won't see Vi or any of the others disputing it with facts ... 

FACTS


----------



## We TaRdED (May 31, 2008)

I actually feel bad for the "nonbelievers", I wonder what else they wouldn't be able to comprehend even when smacked over and over again in the face with facts. 

Like, are the people that don't believe 911 was an inside job that numb or brainwashed?.......* I wonder if the fluoride in the water has anything to do with it?*

YouTube - Dangers of Fluoride

YouTube - Fluoride Poisoning

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## hom36rown (May 31, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> I actually feel bad for the "nonbelievers", I wonder what else they wouldn't be able to comprehend even when smacked over and over again in the face with facts.
> 
> Like, are the people that don't believe 911 was an inside job that numb or brainwashed?.......* I wonder if the fluoride in the water has anything to do with it?*
> 
> ...


Probably has more to do with Mass Media...karl rove is like a new age joseph goebbels


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 3, 2008)

US responsible for 9/11? 

Of course Scholars for 9/11 and many other rational, eminent and technically expert people also have profound scepticism about the Bush version. Indeed the "penny has dropped" for even the long-suffering American people aka "mushrooms" (kept in the dark and fed manure)  recent polls indicate that one third of Americans believe that the US Government was involved (e.g. see: "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll".


*#1*. A former top German Government Minister Von Buelow suggests US was involved in 9/11 (see: here) and a former Russian military and intelligence chief, former head of the Russian military General Ivashov suggests that Western interests were behind 9/11.



These highly-placed European experts rejected "the men in caves" hypothesis as utterly implausible because the 9/11 operation needed the resources of a major state intelligence operation operating within the US. The only real candidates are accordingly the CIA and Israeli Mossad. 

*#3*. Former 7-year president of Italy, law professor, senator for life, Western "Gladio" terrorist group intimate and Western intelligence intimate Francesco Cossigo, in an interview with one of Italy's top newspapers, Corriere della Sera, in November 2007, declared that the CIA and Israeli Mossad were responsible for 9/11; that they had done it to further US and Zionist interests; and that major Western intelligence agencies were aware of this (see MWC News). 




Alright ... so it's the German ... the Japanese ... the Italians ... the Swiss ... and the Russians that don't buy the bullshit ... too bad most Americans are so stupid that they think a steel reinforce building with a melting point of 2750 degrees F can come crashing down in less than 15 sec. only after burning for an hours from jet fuel that can only reach 1200 degrees ... how stupid can you be? 

911 was definitely an inside job ... no if ands or buts about it ...


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 3, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> Alright ... so it's the German ... the Japanese ... the Italians ... the Swiss ... and the Russians that don't buy the bullshit ... too bad most Americans are so stupid that they think a steel reinforce building with a melting point of 2750 degrees F can come crashing down in less than 15 sec. only after burning for an hours from jet fuel that can only reach 1200 degrees ... how stupid can you be?
> 
> 911 was definitely an inside job ... no if ands or buts about it ...


Don't you watch to FOX news? You should read the NIST report that the gov't put out because its 'the truth'.... HAHAHAHA... *just kidding..
*

If 911 was not an inside job than I would move out of the country....


RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## ZenMaster (Jun 3, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> Don't you watch to FOX news? You should read the NIST report that the gov't put out because its 'the truth'.... HAHAHAHA... *just kidding..
> *
> 
> If 911 was not an inside job than I would move out of the country....
> ...


I have her on ignore but I saw her post through your quote so I thought I would respond.

You know the more heavy part of those kinds of structures is at the top? That is where they cram all the A.C. units and appliances. It is by far top heavy, so when you weaken the support holding all that weight up, its gonna come crashing down like a fist down styrofoam cup.


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 3, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> I have her on ignore but I saw her post through your quote so I thought I would respond.
> 
> You know the more heavy part of those kinds of structures is at the top? That is where they cram all the A.C. units and appliances. It is by far top heavy, so when you weaken the support holding all that weight up, its gonna come crashing down like a fist down styrofoam cup.


I'm confused about your analogy here Zen ....

I agree with GrowRebel. I am willing to be my life on the fact that 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. You should know by know that I'm not some idiot that can't think for myself. I have done my own research to come to my conclusions. 

What are you talking about ACs and Styrofoam cups for? Why do you have to ignore GR, why can't you just ignore her on your own accord? 

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## ZenMaster (Jun 3, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> I'm confused about your analogy here Zen ....
> 
> I agree with GrowRebel. I am willing to be my life on the fact that 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. You should know by know that I'm not some idiot that can't think for myself. I have done my own research to come to my conclusions.
> 
> ...


Let me see if I can make this any more clear.

A.C. units. Air Conditioning. The thing that keeps your room at 71º. In buildings like The World Trade Center, its massive. It weighs *alot*. So, imagine a dictionary being held up by pencils. Take a few pencils out and that book is coming down mercilessly. Thats why WTC collapsed at such a rapid pace. Is that a better analogy?

I'm sorry to hear that your willing to bet your life on this conspiracy theory, if thats the case, you are beyond hope. I'm sorry man but I think your some kid wrapped up with the conspiracy fad and have the ironic audacity to pity skeptics to your beliefs because you believe they are ignorant yet ironically you are the one basking in false reality.

Why do I have Grow on ignore? Simply because she is a mono-oriented and unwilling to compromise. I don't deal with close-minded people.


----------



## Brandon78125 (Jun 3, 2008)

check this out

YouTube - U.S. Government's Covert Plans, Exposed!


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 3, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> Let me see if I can make this any more clear.
> 
> A.C. units. Air Conditioning. The thing that keeps your room at 71º. In buildings like The World Trade Center, its massive. It weighs *alot*. So, imagine a dictionary being held up by pencils. Take a few pencils out and that book is coming down mercilessly. Thats why WTC collapsed at such a rapid pace. Is that a better analogy?
> 
> ...


*"I'm sorry man but I think your some kid wrapped up with the conspiracy fad and have the ironic audacity to pity skeptics to your beliefs because you believe they are ignorant yet ironically you are the one basking in false reality."*

Dude, you believe in the bible. I'm sure you know that back 400 years ago *people believed the bible was fact *and that the earth was flat. 

I am a realist, I believe what makes the most sense to me with an open mind. I was a Christian less than 6 months ago before I studied on the subject with an open mind. I now believe Christianity was a tool used to control people for different reasons. 

Ohh, and the WTCs were built "like a book being held up by pencils"... ~LMAO~ HAHAHA... Tell the engineers that!! LMAO.... 

Zen, good luck with all your endeavors my friend. I wish the best for you. There is no reason for me to refute with you because you never wish to provide sources/links for your claims.

I could say the WTC complex was built like structural *steel buildings* that were *engineered* to withstand plane crashes and fires. But, that would be outlandish hearsay unless it could be proven with a credible source............. I don't even need to provide a link for my above claim because it should be well known by now. 

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 4, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> Let me see if I can make this any more clear.
> 
> A.C. units. Air Conditioning. The thing that keeps your room at 71º. In buildings like The World Trade Center, its massive. It weighs *alot*. So, imagine a dictionary being held up by pencils. Take a few pencils out and that book is coming down mercilessly. Thats why WTC collapsed at such a rapid pace. Is that a better analogy?


Its so simple now, why couldnt I see it before....LMAO....


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 4, 2008)

hom36rown said:


> Its so simple now, why couldnt I see it before....LMAO....


 the parrot ... as I affectionately call him ...  actually believes he know what he's talking about ... a dictionary held up by a few pencils ... 







Some thing that has this much reinforcement is not going to come crashing down in 15 sec after burning for only an hour ... and people like the parrot who imagine he a zen are stupid it they believe it can. With all the obvious facts and information out there ... ignorance is not an excuse ... the parrot always talks about what he know but you will hardly ever see him back his statement ... once he did ... and it was bullshit from fauxnews ... long proven wrong ... yet he still refers to it ...

After you read a few of zen parrot's post you can easily see how stupid he is ...


----------



## ZenMaster (Jun 4, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> the parrot ... as I affectionately call him ...  actually believes he know what he's talking about ... a dictionary held up by a few pencils ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, the WTC's design is a little more complex than that picture.

Swedish Structural Engineer: WTC Towers Did Not Collapse from Fire « tobefree
The following is from my book, Fire in the Skyscraper
Reports of Controlled Demolition, Bombs, Thermite, Electromagnetic Rays, etc..
Many reports interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these explosive sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. The exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the planes impact. Thats 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2s collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have happened with controlled demolition.
When the south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. In the North Tower thunder sounds were heard when floors collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe all the supposed explosive sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in by the bowing and buckling floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive explosive sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were probably caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.
It is also clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing or could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls. All these adverse truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling happen at low temperatures (400 C to 600 C) even before the steel would have weakened excessively from higher temperatures. Once the exterior column buckling spread along an entire wall on one face the towers began to tilt and the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and with all the columns buckled the top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some angles to have fallen straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the cantilevered top south building section pulled the core over to the south. 
The South Towers top tilted to the east because its east wall buckled first. Once the core columns got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the buildings gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolted connections holding the floors to the columns. This coupled with the fact that the falling top sections momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top sections acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts would have been increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs increasing amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulated floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.
In order for the columns to support the weight they have to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. If they get out of plumb or buckle they can no longer support the weight. The buildings collapsed because the floors buckled from restrained thermal expansion and thermal bowing affecting floor truss stability. The sagging trusses pulled in the 59 columns in one exterior wall and buckled them. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. The South Tower tilted to the east and the North Tower tilted to the South. Once the tilted buildings tops began descending they hit the floors or columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any resistance to the falling building top the columns would have to hit each other exactly in line and in plumb and this was impossible with the eccentric angles of impact.
The fact is that columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the south wall buckled in Tower 2 the adjacent exterior wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. With all the columns across the building buckled the top section began descending at an angle to the building section below. None of the columns would have been axially lined up. As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated to bedrock 7 stories into the cellars.
There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been longer than free fall times of an object dropped from the towers tops. I have an engineering theory that may explain this. Since the Towers outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana, they may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns; would these columns, while leaning out, be able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might help explain the rapid collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than free fall times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above.
The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high buildings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree.
Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. 
In addition, the compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out of any air intake or discharge openings on the exterior walls on the lower mechanical equipment floors. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive vertical HVAC shafts built into the building. These shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts on the mechanical floors. Collapse of these shafts would force the dust and smoke out these HVAC exhaust and intake openings in the side of the building. 
The lightweight aluminum claddings breaking free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off these aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive squibs. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel, and such indications were not found in the debris pile. 
Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at 327 C (621 F). The heat form the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead which was probably what was seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. Batteries also contain Sulfuric acid which could have attacked the steel accounting for the half consumed steel beams found in the debris pile. Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldnt last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed.
About the concrete destruction into dust; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says the energy required to crush concrete to 100 &#956;m particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range.
nistreview.org I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par due to freezing during curing or too much air or water having been added during construction.
In conclusion I think most of the reports of controlled demolition are examples of delusions experienced by experts who jumped to conclusions and didnt spend enough time examining the actual evidence. 
Arthur Scheuerman

But thanks for playing.


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 4, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> But thanks for playing.


I didn't feel like reading the whole book, but did that explain the WTC7 collapse too? Thats more important to me than the other two WTC buildings. Its just amazing how that building fell at near free fall speeds from a fire... Simply amazing..

I wonder how many times that could be duplicated if the exact same contingencies were implemented. I personally think the engineers should be sued also because from a simple fire the building just collapses in its own footprint at free fall speed. You would have thought that they wouldn't hire crack heads to engineer buildings.(can you feel the sarcasm? )

YouTube - Alex Jones Predicts 911

YouTube - WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein

YouTube - FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event

Honestly Zen, if you can a total of 10 mins of vids for me please, I would love for you to refute my (omg, its actually more youtube vids.. So they must be false... right? HAHA) youtube vids. 

YouTube - If You're an American you should see THIS! for real

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## bobharvey (Jun 5, 2008)

WE, zen already said that there were AC's and styrofoam pencils on the top of the two towers....that's why building seven fell! DUH! Oh and btw ZEN if you don't want this thread to be bumped up...then quit posting in it.


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 5, 2008)

to answer your question we, it didnt say anything about tower 7....I dont think any of us can really make a truly imformed decision unless we were very educated in structural engineering and physics...and Im too lazy to read into all that, personally whether or not there were demolitions in the buildings is unimportant to me...perhaps it was just the icing on the cake for bush and his cronies....doesnt change a thing in my opinion either way....its still painfully obvious to me that the powers that be knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing to stop it.....oh and zen, did you notice how how your analogy had nothing to do with this guys explaination, its a little more complicated than pencil and dictionaries...and notice how he said it was just his theory regarding how they fell at free fall speed, im sure you could find plenty of engineers who would refute his theory


----------



## bobharvey (Jun 5, 2008)

This slays me: 


ZenMaster said:


> Actually, the WTC's design is *a little more complex than that picture*.


BUT 



ZenMaster said:


> So, *imagine a dictionary being held up by pencils*. *Take a few pencils out and that book is coming down mercilessly*. Thats why WTC collapsed at such a rapid pace. Is that a better analogy?


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 5, 2008)

lmao....thats funny shit


----------



## ZenMaster (Jun 5, 2008)

bobharvey said:


> This slays me:
> 
> 
> BUT


I gave my little explanation/analogy because I didn't feel the need to go into detail why I believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Due to the expected ignorant comments later posted I had to go into more detail. However its still the same, WTC and many other skyscrapers built like it, have all their AC units and other facilities at the very top of the building, so its by far top heavy. When the top has loses its support, not much is going to stop it from coming down. Thats its in a nutshell, would you like to go some more?




bobharvey said:


> WE, zen already said that there were AC's and styrofoam pencils on the top of the two towers....that's why building seven fell! DUH! Oh and btw ZEN if you don't want this thread to be bumped up...then quit posting in it.


I really try not to. Something so stupid should be ignored but however I feel like I am being trolled once again to responding to such nonsense. Guess its in my nature to attempt to combat blind ignorance no matter who spews it out. Only if they listen..


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 5, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> However its still the same, WTC and many other skyscrapers built like it, have all their AC units and other facilities at the very top of the building, so its by far top heavy. When the top has loses its support, not much is going to stop it from coming down.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if they listen..


The AC units really help explain a lot Zen, thanks  How much weight do you think the AC units would add to the building? Why wouldn't they have AC units in the bottom of building too(was it central air?)? Regardless of the weight the AC added, the buildings were engineered to withstand plane crashes and to withstand the weight of the air conditioners. 

Don't listen to me,* listen to an MIT engineer YouTube - MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1
* YouTube - 9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

If someone would only watch this video it would help explain a lot.. YouTube - WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein If someone can watch this vid (its only 24 seconds) and has a head on their shoulders that works, than they can deduce that the the owner of the WTC complex- Larry Silverstein- gave the order to pull WTC7 and then they pulled it and they watched WTC7 fall in its own footprint at near free fall speed. Ohhh ya, and lets not forget to listen to the official report, and be aware that this building feel because of a fire HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

YouTube - Alex Jones Predicts 911
YouTube - If You're an American you should see THIS! for real


Only if you listen.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## email468 (Jun 5, 2008)

Is anyone still discussing the Israeli art student incidents prior to the 911 event? Or did that get lost in the shuffle?


----------



## bobharvey (Jun 5, 2008)

i think that its just another one of those things that don't have to be explained just ignored. and when brought by genuine truth seekers, they get called nut jobs by people who refuse to believe that anyone on tv would ever lie to them...
I guess if you ignore the fact that wtc7 did collapse, like the 911 commission did then it just goes away.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 5, 2008)

ZenMaster said:


> Actually, the WTC's design is a little more complex than that picture.
> 
> Swedish Structural Engineer: WTC Towers Did Not Collapse from Fire « tobefree
> The following is from my book, Fire in the Skyscraper


What complete and total bullshit ... this guy is as lame as the kid that post it ... First of all the building started to collapse AFTER the firefighters heard the explosions






_ No steel framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - due to the high temperatures that would be required to weaken structural steel past it's critical safety margin - even though very large, very hot, and very long-lasting fires have ravaged many steel-structure high-rise buildings. *These buildings are all in use today:*

 Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building,
burned for 17 hours over 26 floors
 Los Angeles, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories,
burned for 3.5 hours over 5 floors
 Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories,
burned for 18 hours over 8 floors
 New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories,
burned for six hours

_Yet this kid and his crackpot scientist believes a building design to withstand a plane crash and fire could free fall in 15 sec only after burning less than an hour ... please ... 
_








__ It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this without buckling. Thermate cutter charges create over 4,500°F. Fires  even with jet fuel  create only 1,700°F maximum.


_ ... so your source fuck up ... he fail to explain why other similar buildings didn't collapse ... and they burned far longer ... and that bullshit about downward motion ... what a and batteries melting ...what a crock of shit ... 

check it ... 






a building that suppose to have collapse from downward motion would not make cuts like that ... so much for your source... 

Folk this is the kind of bullshit you can expect from this kid ... he can't plead ignorance because we have giving several sources of information ... so he can be legally called stupid ...


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 6, 2008)

bobharvey said:


> I guess if you ignore the fact that wtc7 did collapse, like the 911 commission did then it just goes away.


Are you saying I should ignore the WTC7 collapse? WTF??? 


If we find out what really happened on the day of sept. 11 of 2001 than it would explain a lot of our present day situation, much better. Just think of how much could be explained if we could get some conclusive facts on who was actually behind 911. We could figure out why our gas prices are so high. We could figure out why our dollar is losing its value and thusly increasing the price of everything else. Maybe thats why G.W.Bush put an immunity(or whatever the exact name was) on himself for his actions while being in office?

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 6, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


>


This is my favorite picture 

If someone(Zen) can explain why the middle beam, above the firefighters head, is cut perfectly like that than I will stop believing that 911was an inside job

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## bobharvey (Jun 6, 2008)

I wasn't saying for you to ignore the fact that WTC7 fell, I'm just saying the 911 commission completely ignored it so a lot of people don't even know about it or don't even care. You have to be blind to IGNORE it.


----------



## arabmobster (Jun 6, 2008)

bobharvey said:


> I wasn't saying for you to ignore the fact that WTC7 fell, I'm just saying the 911 commission completely ignored it so a lot of people don't even know about it or don't even care. You have to be blind to IGNORE it.


911 commision was written to fool everyone


----------



## AchillesLast (Jun 6, 2008)

I dunno if this video has already been linked (I didn't have time to read through all 20 something pages) but it's one of the best 9/11 videos I've seen. Very in depth and full length all on youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 6, 2008)

I don't have any link to the movie Loose Change, but I have seen it ... thanks for putting it up ... not one of these nay sayers has put up anything that totally dispute 911 was an inside job ... the crap that the parrot put up ... well you guys can read ...


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 7, 2008)

What happened to Zen anyways? I was waiting for his rebuttal on my last couple posts. Maybe I'm not educated enough for him.......... 

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2008)

Like Vi he has none... only bullshit rhetoric ... and 9 chances in 10 something has already been posted that would slam any of his bullshit ... 

Here's more on people disputing the so-called "official" story of 911 ... 

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/158715-Book-Review-9-11-Contradictions-An-Open-Letter-to-Congress-and-the-Press[URL="http://www.sott.net/articles/show/158715-Book-Review-9-11-Contradictions-An-Open-Letter-to-Congress-and-the-Press"]9-11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press[/url]

Dr. Griffin presents a sequence of irrefutable facts drawn from documents and testimony that demonstrate twenty five internal contradictions in the official 9/11 story. As each contradiction is presented, the author juxtaposes documented timelines and official memos, eye-witness testimony, television broadcasts and news articles that are logically inconsistent with the narrative contrived by the 9/11 Commission.


----------



## email468 (Jun 10, 2008)

Wow! folks sure throw around the terms "facts", "proof", and "evidence" like they were confetti!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2008)

Wow ... and folks that think the "facts" are confetti can't go beyond that ... with "proof" that disputes the "confetti" but then that's usually the best folks with no backing can do ..... wow ...


----------



## email468 (Jun 10, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> Wow ... and folks that think the "facts" are confetti can't go beyond that ... with "proof" that disputes the "confetti" but then that's usually the best folks with no backing can do ..... wow ...


you and Zen and we and everyone on here can scream facts at the top of their lungs but it boils down to this - you don't know. Zen doesn't know. And I don't know. 

The difference is - i admit it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2008)

I do know ... and so do a lot of others ... you claim you don't know because you obviously can't dispute any facts ... since you can read ... you only prove stupidity since you have no other excuse ... when presented with facts ...


----------



## email468 (Jun 10, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> I do know ... and so do a lot of others ... you claim you don't know because you obviously can't dispute any facts ... since you can read ... you only prove stupidity since you have no other excuse ... when presented with facts ...


are you attacking me personally? Are you calling me stupid?
I did not insult you and will ask you kindly not to insult me. Say what you like but i do not get my "facts" from youtube OR the mass media. Which is why i have so few facts as they are very difficult to come by. And unlike facts, guesses and bullshit are all around us.

I am not trying to dispute anyone or anything. I don't know because (drum roll please....) i wasn't there and have not looked first hand at the evidence. Even if i did have access, I am no expert and would not know what I would be looking at anyway. So I am stuck either not knowing or trusting one of the experts. And frankly, the experts are disagreeing about what the evidence says so that leaves us choosing sides. You choose or have faith in the evidence (what you are calling facts) that agrees more with your preconceived notions as is Zen and everyone else on this thread. I have seen other posts that refute your facts and you dismiss them out of hand... why? I ask the same question of people who do the same with the facts you present.

I have no horse in this race other than telling you (and anyone else convinced they have all the facts) to get the fuck off your high-horse and entertain the possibility you could be wrong.

Let me ask you this - what evidence would convince you that you are mistaken?


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 10, 2008)

email468 said:


> you and Zen and we and everyone on here can scream facts at the top of their lungs but it boils down to this - you don't know. Zen doesn't know. And I don't know.
> 
> The difference is - i admit it.


How much more "proof" do you need? Idk. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I'm too retarded to know. I should practice what I preach, and stay away from the tap water.....

911, *in my most honest and humble opinion*, was an inside job..

Some of my favorite youtube vids

YouTube - Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11

YouTube - Alex Jones Predicts 911 Alex Jones actually predicted 911 in this vid. 

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect - "How The Towers Fell" - Complete 2 Hour Presentation | 911Blogger.com An architect refutes the alleged 911 report.

YouTube - MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 2 An MIT professor refutes the alleged 911 report.

YouTube - FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event A news company reports that WTC7 fell before it actually did. 

YouTube - If You're an American you should see THIS! for real A pissed off politician is empathetic of the conspiracy "theorists".


Sure, no one came out and said "I was behind the 911 attack(besides "Bin Landin" YouTube - 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE BIN LADEN TAPE IS A FAKE!) , but what criminals come out and say "Hey, I robbed that bank. Now you can handcuff me and escort me to the jail cell that I will spend my life in?"?

Why do you think we have court system? Its because people usually lie about the crimes that they have committed and its up to the judge and (possibly) jury to discern/dictate what really happened- through clues and evidence. So, I ask you, how much more information do you really need in order put the pieces together and figure out whats really going on? Maybe I'm just a delusional idiot, but from the evidence that has been put forth on this thread, I would rule the Bush administration and his cronies guilty!

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## email468 (Jun 10, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> How much more "proof" do you need? Idk. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I'm too retarded to know. I should practice what I preach, and stay away from the tap water.....
> 
> 911, *in my most honest and humble opinion*, was an inside job..
> 
> ...



my point being for everyone of these videos there is another youtube video contradicting it. so you are stuck choosing sides. Hell you said it in your first couple of sentences when you say: "in my honest and humble OPINION". You may be right and my opinion doesn't matter. But everyone isn't saying my opinion is blah blah - they are talking about facts and facts are far different than opinions.

for all i know bush could have lit the fuse himself. But maybe Bin Laden was the mastermind. or maybe, like most things, the truth is somewhere in between. But with everybody shouting and not listening we'll never find out the truth of the matter. 

for every person willing to listen to reason like you We - there are many, many others sure that they have the right answer and will not listen to anything counter to what they already believe.


----------



## medicineman (Jun 10, 2008)

E-mail, of course you are right about most of us relying on second/third/ fourth/etc, hand news. That is what we are fed by all the media. We can only apply our reason to those stories and have an opinion. I've stated all along that this an opinion forum nothing more. Facts are first hand experiences, like if you call me an asshole, then that is a fact, the fact that you called me an asshole, not that I am one, although I may be. But just the fact that you called me one doesn't make it true. Now apply this to any other subject on this forum and I think you get my drift. I may call you an asshole, but that may or may not be a fact.


----------



## email468 (Jun 10, 2008)

medicineman said:


> E-mail, of course you are right about most of us relying on second/third/ fourth/etc, hand news. That is what we are fed by all the media. We can only apply our reason to those stories and have an opinion. I've stated all along that this an opinion forum nothing more. Facts are first hand experiences, like if you call me an asshole, then that is a fact, the fact that you called me an asshole, not that I am one, although I may be. But just the fact that you called me one doesn't make it true. Now apply this to any other subject on this forum and I think you get my drift. I may call you an asshole, but that may or may not be a fact.


hey med - we do agree on some stuff! we agree it is an opinion forum and i'm not trying to suppress anyone from expressing theirs. I just don't like to see it presented as "factual" with no possibility of error.

And I think we can both agree that we both can be assholes.... even when we aren't calling each other that!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2008)

email468 said:


> my point being for everyone of these videos there is another youtube video contradicting it. so you are stuck choosing sides. Hell you said it in your first couple of sentences when you say: "in my honest and humble OPINION". You may be right and my opinion doesn't matter. But everyone isn't saying my opinion is blah blah - they are talking about facts and facts are far different than opinions.
> 
> for all i know bush could have lit the fuse himself. But maybe Bin Laden was the mastermind. or maybe, like most things, the truth is somewhere in between. But with everybody shouting and not listening we'll never find out the truth of the matter.
> 
> for every person willing to listen to reason like you We - there are many, many others sure that they have the right answer and will not listen to anything counter to what they already believe.


 ... if there are video that you believe can counter what is posted ... put them up ... I'm tried of people saying it's just opinions when it's FACTS ... it's a FACT not an opinion that steel melts at 2750 degrees and jet plane fuel burns at 1200 degrees F ... it's a FACT that building design to withstand plane crashes and fire will NOT collapse free fall style only after burning for less than an hour ... That's FACT no opinion ... there's a difference ... FACT other country don't buy the lies ...

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/2008/06/petition-for-ca.htmlPETITION FOR CANADIAN 9/11 INVESTIGATION TO BE READ INTO PARLIAMENT TUESDAY JUNE 10th, 2008


----------



## email468 (Jun 10, 2008)

Oh i see - you do not understand the difference between opinions and facts. Let me help you...
Fact: Steel melts around 2750 F
Fact: Jet fuel burns at 800-1500 F
Opinion: Plane crash into building will not cause building to collapse.

The reason this is so is because you can prove when steel melts. you can prove at what temperature jet fuel burns. you can NOT prove a building will or will not collapse if a plane flies into it unless you are able to replicate the experiment.

Did you know steel loses about 50% of its strength at 1100 F (within the range of the burning jet fuel)? And do you not think other things were on fire after the plane crashed into the building (like office furniture, rugs, paper) with temperatures easily reaching 1700-1800 F? Which means the steel frames probably had less than 10% of their original strength?

I will be very clear - i am not saying my explanation is any more right than yours - but it is an alternate explanation that should be entertained before being dismissed outright.



GrowRebel said:


> ... if there are video that you believe can counter what is posted ... put them up ... I'm tried of people saying it's just opinions when it's FACTS ... it's a FACT not an opinion that steel melts at 2750 degrees and jet plane fuel burns at 1200 degrees F ... it's a FACT that building design to withstand plane crashes and fire will NOT collapse free fall style only after burning for less than an hour ... That's FACT no opinion ... there's a difference ... FACT other country don't buy the lies ...
> 
> PETITION FOR CANADIAN 9/11 INVESTIGATION TO BE READ INTO PARLIAMENT TUESDAY JUNE 10th, 2008


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 10, 2008)

email468 said:


> Opinion: Plane crash into building will not cause building to collapse.


I think it should be a fact that WTC7 was not hit by a plane but had a relatively small fire burning, but collapsed just as if it had been demolished. 

And the vids that I linked are facts!

Its a fact that Larry Silverstein said "pull it.... etc etc, in this vid. YouTube - Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11

Its a fact that Alex Jones actually predicted 911 in this vid. YouTube - Alex Jones Predicts 911

Its a fact that an architect and MIT professor are refuting the official 911 reports.

Its a fact a news company reports that WTC7 fell before it actually did. YouTube - FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event

Its a fact that A pissed off politician is empathetic of the conspiracy "theorists".YouTube - If You're an American you should see THIS! for real

Its a fact that the USA corporation/gov't said they received this vid of OBL admitting 911..http://youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

If you believe any of these things that I posted are opinions than you need to stop drinking fluorinated tap water because it is truly making you retarded. YouTube - Fluoride Poisoning

It is my opinion that 911 was an inside job. I am not trying to pass facts as fiction you boob!!!!!!



RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## email468 (Jun 10, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> It is my opinion that 911 was an inside job. I am not trying to pass facts as fiction you moron!!!!!!


We TaRdED -- are you too now sinking to insults?


----------



## powerplant (Jun 10, 2008)

fuk it forget it, get over it. let go. build over it. watch more fox. eat more McDicks.


----------



## arabmobster (Jun 10, 2008)

powerplant said:


> fuk it forget it, get over it. let go. build over it. watch more fox. eat more McDicks.


how can u forgot it, ur in 2 countries cus of it


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2008)

email468 said:


> Oh i see - you do not understand the difference between opinions and facts. Let me help you...
> Fact: Steel melts around 2750 F
> Fact: Jet fuel burns at 800-1500 F
> Opinion: Plane crash into building will not cause building to collapse.
> ...


 Your explanation holds no facts ... mine and other post do ... I've already proven a plane and fire can't take down a skyscaper ... yet I don't see you posting any proof it can ... and that 50% strength and 10% at a temp of 1800 is bullshit ... if that were true the skyscapers I posted in this thread would have came down too yet they didn't ... you seem to have a problem telling the difference between facts and opinions ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 20, 2008)

Hey kids ... don't say your auntie GrowRebel won't treat ya right ... enjoy ...

"9/11 Was An Inside Job" Official Music Video

Oh yeah ... and there's this too

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062008_smear_attack.htmBBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth
"They dress funny! And they smell bad! You don't want to listen to them!!! Please!!!!" MR


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 20, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88ERON PAUL DOESN'T ACCEPT 9/11 INVESTIGATION!


----------



## smokedoper (Jun 22, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88ERON PAUL DOESN'T ACCEPT 9/11 INVESTIGATION!


I keep seeing all of these things about Ron Paul. But he is no different than any other politician. When he was running for the Republican nomination he never suspended his campaign when McCain won the nomination. He also still accepts money on his website. Has anybody given money to his campaign since McCain received the nomination? Also, he received money from the FEC (Federal Election Commission). The FEC gives matching funds dollar for dollar, to any candidate who request it. Get a Freedom of Information Act paperwork, fill it out and ask the FEC how much money the Ron Paul for President campaign received. And make sure to ask how much money he still receives from them. Which this could mean that he intends on still running for president either as an Independent or Libertarian since they already have a line on Presidential ballots. Or it could mean he is just as greedy as the other politicians in Washington. Now I will admit that he has some interesting theories on how the government should be run. Although, using only the Constitution would really not work entirely.


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 22, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> RON PAUL DOESN'T ACCEPT 9/11 INVESTIGATION!


Thanks GR! 

I'm going to bookmark this one!



smokedoper said:


> I keep seeing all of these things about Ron Paul. But he is no different than any other politician. When he was running for the Republican nomination he never suspended his campaign when McCain won the nomination. He also still accepts money on his website. Has anybody given money to his campaign since McCain received the nomination? Also, he received money from the FEC (Federal Election Commission). The FEC gives matching funds dollar for dollar, to any candidate who request it. Get a Freedom of Information Act paperwork, fill it out and ask the FEC how much money the Ron Paul for President campaign received. And make sure to ask how much money he still receives from them. Which this could mean that he intends on still running for president either as an Independent or Libertarian since they already have a line on Presidential ballots. Or it could mean he is just as greedy as the other politicians in Washington. Now I will admit that he has some interesting theories on how the government should be run. Although, using only the Constitution would really not work entirely.


RON PAUL is/was the best candidate running for POTUS! The reason why RON PAUL isn't well know throughout the USA is because the gov't and media are sleeping together! The media/gov't doesn't want him to become president because he wants to do away with income tax and he wants to get rid of the "Federal" Reserve! RON PAUL is the man, he knows the gov't is acting like a cooperation- whose sole purpose is to expand and make more $$$$$$... RON PAUL wants to make the USA better for the people. RON PAUL knows what the problems are and knows how to fix them. RON PAUL is the man!

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 22, 2008)

Do You like kusinich at all we? Hes against the fed and and fractional reserve banking, other side of the spectrum though.


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 22, 2008)

hom36rown said:


> Do You like kusinich at all we? Hes against the fed and and fractional reserve banking, other side of the spectrum though.


I never heard of him to be honest with you. I'm still very young(early twenties) and I just started to get politically "active" in the last 3 months. The reason why I'm an sign "RON PAUL REVOLUTION" to very post I make is because I want people to inquire about him and than maybe look him up and find out what he stands for. After they find out what this guy stands for than they might see Americas true potential. 

I'm not in love with RON PAUL but I do believe in minimal gov't. I think our gov't has gotten way out of control and needs to be stopped. Simply look at this thread- Its about 911 (the biggest "terrorist" attack on the USA soil) and we are conclusive that the "official" report is full of shit and we even go further than that and we blame it on our own gov't! The 911 truthers are not saying 911 was an inside job because we want to look like crackpots but rather because we are logical and can connect the dots on what info is available. The 911 truthers are usually way more informed about the 911 happenings than a "nontruther". A lot of people don't even know that what WTC7 is..... A lot of people didn't know how many buildings were in the WTCenter complex.

YouTube - Rosie O'Donnell dicusses WTC 7 facts / physics 9/11 Truth

Watch the whole video...... The end is really good too. Go Rosie!!!

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## VTXDave (Jun 22, 2008)

hom36rown said:


> Do You like kusinich at all we? Hes against the fed and and fractional reserve banking, other side of the spectrum though.


My biggest problem w/ Kucinich is that he has supported legislation to stifle the 1st Amendment. Check out the Fairness Doctrine. Other than that, I feel he has far more integrity and honesty than the liar they're currently running.


----------



## We TaRdED (Jun 22, 2008)

YouTube - President's Son Issues Murder Contract

Operation- take out the conspiracy "theorists"....  It looks like me and GR are going to get a bullet in our head courtesy of the Reagan family..

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 18, 2008)

There's a whole bunch of people they will have to put bullets in their heads ... more on 911 ... so much for the asinine pancake theory that one of the dummy bushies was spouting off because fauxnews told him ... 

...I've said this once and I will say it again ... you have to be a complete and total idiot to accept that these supersturctures can come crashing straight down in 15 sec. only after burning for a hour ... no way ... it hasn't happen in the past ... and it certainly didn't happen the way the lying government claim ... those that believe it did are just stupid ... no ifs ands or buts about it ... kiss-ass

http://exoptica.typepad.com/blogoptica/Why the World Trade Center towers floors could not 'pancake' collapse as we have been told.
The typical floor structural configuration for the World Trade Center Towers spanned from the exterior wall columns to where the inner 49 columns formed support for the elevator shafts, stair towers, air shafts and mechanical systems. Thus, each floor was NOT a monolithic slab and structural system spanning across each tower from one exterior wall to the other three, as we are led to believe. Each floor, in fact, terminating at the contiguous structural core, resembled a square 'donut', with the structural core, so to speak, being the 'donut' hole. Failure of floor structural support in any quadrant of the building plan, or even in any half, thus, would have failed ASSYMETRICALLY.

... and here's a comment sense article on 911 ... just a commentary nothing more ... but it makes sense to people that can handle the true ... that's the main reason people are in denial about 911 being an inside job ... it's like that movie with "A few Goo Men" where Jack N. shouted "You can't handle the truth" ... well he's right ... many americans simply can't handle the truth ... even when it stares them in the face ... 

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=drkg9jg_14153xr6fcg2The common sense approach to why 9/11 was clearly an inside job
If terrorism was really a threat to the US, don't you think we would have had another attack since 9/11? It wouldn't even have to be more airplane attacks. It could be bombs blowing up buses, houses, trains, but no - it hasn't happened. That shows that there is ABSOLUTELY no homegrown terrorist threat to the US. If you have any common knowledge, you know that you can find most of the ingredients to make a bomb in your local Walmart (Fox has even done reports on it). There are NO terrorists in the US (except for the government, of course).


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 18, 2008)

Here's something else ...
http://curtmaynardsblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/if-you-try-to-pull-false-flag-operation.html[URL="http://curtmaynardsblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/if-you-try-to-pull-false-flag-operation.html"]VIDEO - If You Try To Pull A False Flag Operation, We're Not Going to Believe You[/url]


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 21, 2008)

http://current.com/items/89121364_canadian_mp_presents_petition_911_commission_report_is_a_fraudulent_document?xid=46Canadian MP presents petition: '911 Commission report is a fraudulent document' 
This petition signed by some 500 Canadians was presented by the Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), which is one of Canada's main opposition parties in the House of Commons. This presentation is of significance because it suggests that the leadership of the NDP is sceptical of the official explanation regarding 9/11 and is willing to debate the issue in the Canadian House of Commons.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 24, 2008)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/willie-nelson-to-push-for-impeachment-on-alex-jones-show.htmlWillie Nelson In Talks To Hold Concert For 9/11 Truth
In an exclusive interview today on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones show, iconic musician Willie Nelson volunteered to take part in a concert for 9/11 truth and as part of a campaign to stave off an attack on Iran.

Well alright Willie!


----------



## dub305 (Jul 25, 2008)

watch iilluminati project part 1 on youtube u wont regreat it


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

If you watch that, you'll need 5 hours of this to get your mind right......

The Mark Levin Show » Audio

streaming audio, any day......


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> If you watch that, you'll need 5 hours of this to get your mind right......
> 
> The Mark Levin Show » Audio
> 
> streaming audio, any day......


 I'm sorry, CC but you need some serious mental help. Maybe when Obama becomes POTUS, his health plan could help you,~LOL~.


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

I have Dr. Levin, "The Great One", treating me......I don't yet need the messiah.....I'll let him work his miracles on you, Med....


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> I have Dr. Levin, "The Great One", treating me......I don't yet need the messiah.....I'll let him work his miracles on you, Med....


 Already has. Did you notice the 250 thousand that came out to watch and hear him speak in Berlin. How many does your candidate get? I'll bet he has to pay them to show up.


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Already has. Did you notice the 250 thousand that came out to watch and hear him speak in Berlin. How many does your candidate get? I'll bet he has to pay them to show up.


The funny part is, 250,000 in Germany, but what was the largest crowd in A M E R I C A ? By the way, they gave out free bratwurst and beer as well as having live music, PRIOR to the messiahs showing....Shit, why didn't he do it here, I would have gone.....beer and booing go hand in hand....


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> The funny part is, 250,000 in Germany, but what was the largest crowd in A M E R I C A ? By the way, they gave out free bratwurst and beer as well as having live music, PRIOR to the messiahs showing....Shit, why didn't he do it here, I would have gone.....beer and booing go hand in hand....


 75,000 I believe was one count, tell me about your candidates turnouts.


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

BEER BRATWURST & LIVE MUSIC Med.........fuck the turnouts; this is deceitful, in Germany, no less......


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> BEER BRATWURST & LIVE MUSIC Med.........fuck the turnouts; this is deceitful, in Germany, no less......


Just as I thought, what 500, maybe 1200, half paid 100 bucks to show. CC. People like Obama, People don't like McSame, too much like his pal Bush, and 78% of the people don't like Bush, I'll bet 40-50% actually hate him as I do. Fuck McSame and his Bush politics and fuck Bush. But I can't fault all the people that voted for bush, most like you, have serious mental problems, and could be considered criminally insane. (Criminally for approving his criminal behavior , insane for just voting for the guy the 2nd time.)


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

_Just as I thought, what 500, maybe 1200, half paid 100 bucks to show._

You lost me......help me Med.....


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> _Just as I thought, what 500, maybe 1200, half paid 100 bucks to show._
> 
> You lost me......help me Med.....


 The people that show up at a McSame rally. As opposed to 75,000 at an Obama rally, or 250,000 at the berlin rally. Come on, without vote tampering, do you actually think your candidate has a chance?


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

How many flocked to Hitlers speeches in Berlin?


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> How many flocked to Hitlers speeches in Berlin?


 WTF does that have to do with the Obama-McSame arguement? Are you comparing Barak to Hitler? If so please explain.


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

No, I'm avoiding the original topic.....I was taking a cue from you.....we were talking about O in Germany and you brought up the McSame old argument, the one you and yours are stuck on......so anyway, who gives a fuck about crowds in Germany for an American Presidential candidate? I don't, for one.


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> No, I'm avoiding the original topic.....I was taking a cue from you.....we were talking about O in Germany and you brought up the McSame old argument, the one you and yours are stuck on......so anyway, who gives a fuck about crowds in Germany for an American Presidential candidate? I don't, for one.


 Did you notice the 70,000 crowd in Portland Oregon, a very sparsely populated state at that. Just think if he were to give a speech in LA, probably 2-3 hundred K would show.


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Did you notice the 70,000 crowd in Portland Oregon, a very sparsely populated state at that. Just think if he were to give a speech in LA, probably 2-3 hundred K would show.


Oregon and Cali.....large crowds.......now I'm really scared......


----------



## ccodiane (Jul 25, 2008)

And, for the record...I wouldn't go to a McCain speech......my blood would boil, no doubt.


----------



## medicineman (Jul 25, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> And, for the record...I wouldn't go to a McCain speech......my blood would boil, no doubt.


 Hah, maybe your reasoning is coming on earlier than expected.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 28, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v9lX58NaUA&feature=relatedMark Loizeax President of Controlled Demolition caught in a fib about 9-11
Mark claims that controlled demolition explosions would shatter the windows of the World Trade Towers and Building 7, yet videos of his prior work clearly show that the explosions don;t break the windows, the collapse does. So why is he lying?



I still don't see how people can be so stupid about those buildings ... just because the corporate media said it could happen the way it did doesn't make it true especially with their track record on reporting the real news ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2008)

http://americanjourney.blogspot.com/2008/08/jesse-ventura-on-howard-stern-show-re.htmlVIDEO - Jesse Ventura on the Howard Stern show re 911
Jesse Ventura hits another home run for the truth movement on the Howard Stern show. Howard Stern discussing this topic on his show raises my respect for him greatly - perhaps it will raise yours as well? Please listen to this interview - keep an open mind - Jesse correctly and politely states the issues in question regarding the war and the events of 911. I greatly admire his willingness to publicly put his own reputation on the line for the truth movement. Thanks again Jesse Ventura and Howard Stern.

Stern stated he couldn't "wrap he head around" 911 being an inside job ... he just doesn't think the *illegitimate* bush would be that evil to kill his own citizens ... my question to Stern would be why not? How do you explain Ventura's statement about being a trained demolition expert, he and his colleagues agree those buildings could not have come down as they did without help ...


----------



## bonghits4all (Aug 6, 2008)

go away conspiricy theroy lovers the video is crap.no actual facts presented just opnions.Obvious it was made for conspricy theroy people by6 conspricy theroy people.So you weak minded haters have something to latch onto.Why do you say our president is a power hungray warlord but forget to mention that so is Bin Laden.You forgot also to mention that Bin Laden on many occasions since 9-11 has taken responsibalty and admitted he was behind the attack and continued to mock the american people and way of life.So let me break this down for the tiny brained supporters of this thread.There are 2 suspects in the 9-11 attack one is george bush the other al quida (bin laden).George bush was born in america his parents and their parents are americans he loves america and its way of life he was born into wealth power and substance.And took advantage of the resources we have in america to keep his family in wealth and power.Bin laden born in a cave troubled kid liked to kill things and start trouble.Allways resentfull on the western world because we had freedom to choose and acess to privledges that he didnt.As a adult educated in the best cave in afghanastan he started building support from other radical terrorist minds like saddam huessin and ploted a many part detailed attack on the western world.carried out several. Proudly admitted to the world he did it and ran away to hide in the vast mountains of afghanastan.George bush may not be a good man or a good president.But he is a good american he believes in this country and is not afraid to fight to protect the american life.Bin laden is not a good man not a good leader and hates everything about america.He believes that his soldiers should be willing to die for his cause but somehow manages to exclude himself from being a martyr.Ok so all you little privledged america bashing conspiricy theroy people.You are all free to leave the country you believe bombed itself.I suggest moving to afghanastan.Perhaps then you will grasp the concept of just how hated america is in the middle east.And you will realize just how profoundly unfounded your theroy is.My guess is you will stay in your choosy american way of life with your cell phones ipods and xbox"s because like the cowards you listen to with their inane babble.Your to much of a coward to actually find out whats going on in the rest of the world outside of your favorite 5 calling network.point is this.Al quida


----------



## bonghits4all (Aug 6, 2008)

is responsible for 9-11 not a american.2.shouldnt all americans be supportive of their country.and value their way of life.


----------



## bonghits4all (Aug 6, 2008)

there you have been searved.


----------



## veedubkid (Aug 6, 2008)

Bonghits, maybe if you knew how to spell, or used spell check more people might think that you knew what you were talking about. That being said, who has been SERVED?


----------



## bonghits4all (Aug 6, 2008)

veedubkid said:


> Bonghits, maybe if you knew how to spell, or used spell check more people might think that you knew what you were talking about. That being said, who has been SERVED?


 notice all how this guy has nothing to say about my valid points.Notice like most cowards he attacks and runs away.Notice he is a hypocrite because there is no need for a cama after spell or a space before or.Then notice that i have just SERVED him.


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 6, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Already has. Did you notice the 250 thousand that came out to watch and hear him speak in Berlin. How many does your candidate get? I'll bet he has to pay them to show up.


Only 250,000? Hell man, Obama is a piker. Hitler gathered millions to hear the same thing ... that the individual must sacrifice for the good of the state.

The freakin' Germans are slipping. Or, perhaps the turnout would have been larger, except for the fact that some Germans remember the horrors of history that all that "sacrificing" brought.

And 70,000 turned out in Portland, Oregon? Not surprising. I used to live in Oregon and visited Portland quite often. That 70,000 figure is very close to the estimate I gave to my girlfriend when she asked me how many fascists did I think lived in Portland. Hell, you can see any number of them, on any given day, sipping coffee at the coffee shop at Powell's Book Store ... before hitting the streets in search of their heroin fixes. 

Vi


----------



## veedubkid (Aug 6, 2008)

bonghits4all said:


> notice all how this guy has nothing to say about my valid points.Notice like most cowards he attacks and runs away.Notice he is a hypocrite because there is no need for a cama after spell or a space before or.Then notice that i have just SERVED him.



You can't just say you served someone and that's it. You need to learn how to spell English words correctly if you want any self respecting adult to listen to your inane rambling. I didn't "run" away like you suggest, I just have better things to do then to wait for you to _try_ to insult me with your misspellings.
Some of your sentences make *NO* sense what so ever. 
"Notice he is a hypocrite because there is no need for a cama after spell or a space before or."
Game/Set/Match YOU LOSE!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2008)

Since this is my thread it's my responsibility to show the folks at home how fucked in the head you are ... 



bonghits4all said:


> go away conspiricy theroy lovers the video is crap.no actual facts presented just opnions.


Yep most of the interview was the opinion of Ventura ... but there are plenty of FACTS posted in this thread that you can't begin to dispute ... so ... it's you that needs to go away ... 



bonghits4all said:


> Obvious it was made for conspricy theroy people by6 conspricy theroy people.


Stern nor Ventura are "conspiracy theorists" as people with your narrow mindset like to call those with facts and evidence ... that you can't dispute ... 



bonghits4all said:


> So you weak minded haters have something to latch onto.


You seem to be the weak minded one to accept as fact from a source that has clearly lied in the past, present and future ... 



bonghits4all said:


> Why do you say our president is a power hungray warlord


Yeah ... have you check out all the signing statements, presidential directive, and executive orders lately? ... thought not ... read up on that then you will have your answer as to why ... 



bonghits4all said:


> but forget to mention that so is Bin Laden.


Bin Laden's dead ... died in 2003



bonghits4all said:


> You forgot also to mention that Bin Laden on many occasions since 9-11 has taken responsibalty and admitted he was behind the attack and continued to mock the american people and way of life.


Bin Laden never claim responsibility ... in 2001 he stated he had nothing to do with it ... only in those fake videos the government put out did the fake Bin Laden claim responsibility ... so wrong again ... 



bonghits4all said:


> So let me break this down for the tiny brained supporters of this thread.


How bout we break it down for your tiny brain ... 



bonghits4all said:


> There are 2 suspects in the 9-11 attack one is george bush the other al quida (bin laden).


No ... there are several suspects in the 911 attack ... most are members of PNAC .... 




bonghits4all said:


> George bush was born in america his parents and their parents are americans he loves america and its way of life he was born into wealth power and substance.And took advantage of the resources we have in america to keep his family in wealth and power.


No ... the *illegitimate* bush hates america and our way of life ... remember the signing statements and executive orders you know nothing about? Yeah ... he took advantage alright and ran several business into the ground ... common folk suffered from his practices while he made out ... 



bonghits4all said:


> Bin laden born in a cave troubled kid liked to kill things and start trouble.


Yeah ... right ... a man from one of the richest family in the world born in a cave ... real intelligent thinker this guy ... troubled kid? ... why that sounds just like the *illegitimate* bush .... 




bonghits4all said:


> Allways resentfull on the western world because we had freedom to choose and acess to privledges that he didnt.


Oh is that why halliburton is building prison camps in the states ... 



bonghits4all said:


> As a adult educated in the best cave in afghanastan he started building support from other radical terrorist minds like saddam huessin and ploted a many part detailed attack on the western world.carried out several.


Source? Or are we to simply take your word on this bit of wisdom?



bonghits4all said:


> Proudly admitted to the world he did it and ran away to hide in the vast mountains of afghanastan.


Source? You sure do a lot without any sources to back it up ... why is that ... the folks at home already know, but we'd like to show how all you bushies are alike ... 



bonghits4all said:


> George bush may not be a good man or a good president.But he is a good american he believes in this country and is not afraid to fight to protect the american life.


Well you got the first part right ... the rest is bullshit ... yeah he not afraid to fight when it's other people doing the fighting ...when it was his time to fight he was a coward and went AWOL ... 



bonghits4all said:


> Bin laden is not a good man not a good leader and hates everything about america.


Source? ... other than fauxnews ... 



bonghits4all said:


> He believes that his soldiers should be willing to die for his cause but somehow manages to exclude himself from being a martyr.Ok so all you little privledged america bashing conspiricy theroy people.


Why is it with you mental midgets that when someone hold america accountable they simply do it because they hate america ... what a stupid concept ... when you are wrong ...you are wrong ... no matter who you are ... get it? ... didn't think so ... 



bonghits4all said:


> You are all free to leave the country you believe bombed itself.I suggest moving to afghanastan.


I suggest you move there they don't like descent ... you don't like it ... sounds like a match made in heaven ... 



bonghits4all said:


> Perhaps then you will grasp the concept of just how hated america is in the middle east.


You can't seem to grasp the concept of why that is ... oh yeah ... it's because they hate our freedom ... putting military bases on their land and stealing their resources has nothing to do with it ... yeah .... right .... 



bonghits4all said:


> And you will realize just how profoundly unfounded your theroy is.


You have yet to show how "profoundly unfounded" our theory is ... you seem to only be able to shoot your mouth off and expect us to take you at your uninformed word ... sorry to disappoint you ... until you can show us what is "unfounded" then you will be nothing more than a dumbass bushie ... parroting propaganda because your tiny mind can't grasp the truth ...
... come back when you have links to show the links provided in this thread are "profoundly unfounded" ... leave your so-called "valid points" where they belong ... in the trash ... 



bonghits4all said:


> My guess is you will stay in your choosy american way of life with your cell phones ipods and xbox"s because like the cowards you listen to with their inane babble.Your to much of a coward to actually find out whats going on in the rest of the world outside of your favorite 5 calling network.point is this.Al quida


Sounds like you are describing yourself ... and you have fallen for the pure bullshit of the government ... and it's Al Qaeda which is a fake group thought up by the war criminals ... 

There ... *YOU* have been throughly served ... and don't worry ... I'm not running away ... I'll be right here waiting for your links ... that you won't find ...


----------



## veedubkid (Aug 6, 2008)

Grow rebel is awesomeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 6, 2008)

Damn ... I had no idea there were so many nut-job conspiracy sites on the Internet. 

Vi


----------



## ccodiane (Aug 6, 2008)

This says it all Vi....


You seem to be the weak minded one to accept as fact from a source that has clearly lied in the past, present *and future* ...

Clearly...


----------



## imtylerdammit (Aug 6, 2008)

I strongly disapprove of any and all 9/11 conspiracy theories. Even talking about it gets on my nerves. The past has passed so lets keep it that way.

*Suggested NEW title for this thread*
The dangers of babies that know how to use guns


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2008)

I strongly disapprove of people that strongly disapprove of undisputed 911 facts ... even heads of state know and stated 911 was an inside job ... if reading facts and the truth get on your nerves ... I strongly suggest you don't read it ... some of us don't like repeating the mistakes of the past ... many don't take kindly to murder, torture, and other assorted war crimes ... it's not my problem that these facts get on your nerves ... 

... my only concern is to post reports and documented evidence for all to see ...


----------



## imtylerdammit (Aug 6, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> I strongly disapprove of people that strongly disapprove of undisputed 911 facts ... even heads of state know and stated 911 was an inside job ... if reading facts and the truth get on your nerves ... I strongly suggest you don't read it ... some of us don't like repeating the mistakes of the past ... many don't take kindly to murder, torture, and other assorted war crimes ... it's not my problem that these facts get on your nerves ...
> 
> ... my only concern is to post reports and documented evidence for all to see ...


 
i feel dumb after reading this...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> Damn ... I had no idea there were so many nut-job conspiracy sites on the Internet.
> 
> Vi


Why are they nut-job sites? Cause you say so ... well then it must be true ... you say so ... no proof they are ... just cause you say so ... wow ... what a great bushie argument ... typical ... 



ccodiane said:


> This says it all Vi....
> 
> 
> You seem to be the weak minded one to accept as fact from a source that has clearly lied in the past, present *and future* ...
> ...


... and the lie from my source? ... you always seem to forget that part ... again typical ... just do your usual shit ...  then think yourself clever ...


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 8, 2008)

Y.A.W.N.

Not only did I not realize how many nut-job conspiracy sites were on the Internet, I also didn't have any idea that a thread full of conspiracy nonsense could be this long. 

Vi​


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 8, 2008)

I believe it's just begun!! I wonder how many 911 truthers will come out once you have new leadership? Like higher uppers these heads of state that may be keeping their mouth shut for the time being, scared to end up in cuba eating cockmeat sandwiches with harold an kumar.


----------



## Spitzered (Aug 8, 2008)

I'm with 'Team America' on their depiction of Micheal Moore.

'Film Actors Guild' hahahaha

I'm lovin it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> Y.A.W.N.
> 
> Not only did I not realize how many nut-job conspiracy sites were on the Internet, I also didn't have any idea that a thread full of conspiracy nonsense could be this long.
> 
> Vi​


You mean the nonsense you are unable to dispute? ... that nonsense? ... It don't take much to call something you can dispute a nut job ... too bad you can't prove it ... it would give you something you don't have ... credibility ... we'll just have to come to the conclusion the best you can do is call names ... but is anyone surprise by this ... thought not ... just roll over and go back to sleep ... 

... folks at home ... check out the this thread if you haven't already and see how much this bushie has shown what I've posted as nonsense ... nut job conspiracy ... I guarantee ... you will find nothing ... just another bushies that can only call names instead of disputing the facts with links and sources ... that is something you won't see and if you do ... it will be fauxnews ... check it ...


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 9, 2008)

OK, GR ... this is from one of the sites that you call "facts:"

This petition signed by some 500 Canadians was presented by the Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), which is one of Canada's main opposition parties in the House of Commons. 

This presentation is of significance because it suggests that the leadership of the NDP is sceptical of the official explanation regarding 9/11 and is willing to debate the issue in the Canadian House of Commons. 

Canadian MP Libby Davies reads 9/11 petition in Parliament 

The 911 Commission report is a fraudulent document. "Elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001." 

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED 

We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: 

THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false. 

We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called "War on Terror," it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts. 

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to: 

(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City. 

(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts. 

Committed to truth and accountability, 

So there you have it ... THERE ARE NO FACTS PRESENTED HERE. All that's presented is someone's "feelings" and thoughts. See ... in other words, you post these nut-ball conspiracy theory "beliefs" and "feelings" as though they are fact when they are not. They talk about "scientific and eyewitness evidence" ... then present no evidence. Like O'Bama's Hope and Change, its nothing but bullshit and you've bought into it. Simple as that.

Vi


----------



## We TaRdED (Aug 10, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> So there you have it ... THERE ARE NO FACTS PRESENTED HERE. All that's presented is someone's "feelings" and thoughts. See ... in other words, you post these nut-ball conspiracy theory "beliefs" and "feelings" as though they are fact when they are not. They talk about "scientific and eyewitness evidence" ... then present no evidence. Like O'Bama's Hope and Change, its nothing but bullshit and you've bought into it. Simple as that.
> 
> Vi


Why must you call it "nut-ball conspiracy theory "beliefs"" when 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. 

Yes, some people have different "theories" about what really happened on 911, but its obvious to me that the official report is far from logical. 

Do me a favor Vi, and let me know what you think of this... BBC NEWS | Americas | Third tower mystery 'solved'
*
The REVOLUTION has begun!*

RON PAUL REVOLUTION 

~PEACE~


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 11, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> OK, GR ... this is from one of the sites that you call "facts:"
> 
> 
> (1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.
> ...


Your brain froze up on the most important part ... if there is an non- partisan real investigation ... the facts and truth ... not hard to find ... will come out and the *illegitimate* bush regime (Pelosi and the dim leadership as well) will be charged with war crimes by the ICC. Those are the facts ...


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 12, 2008)

OK, GR ...

Explain how demolition experts were able to infiltrate offices to implant explosives in order to bring the buildings down. You've brought up Building #7 before ... so forget the main towers and concentrate on Building #7. 

Vi


----------



## Spitzered (Aug 12, 2008)

My question is why Bldg 7? The towers were the real symbol of American despotism.
What about the first attack on the WTC? 
Why did OBL claim responsibility and invite attacks on him?
Just questions.

Now the Pentagon is a different story, I don't have doubts who was behind it but how it was done. I think it was a missile of some sort. But I have no real proof either way.


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 12, 2008)

Well, I just wanted to keep it simple for GrowRebel. If she can come up with how demolition crews were able to infiltrate the building to implant the explosives that SHE claims brought the building down ... then more power to her. BUT to date, none of the conspiracy theorists can answer the question.

Vi


----------



## AchillesLast (Aug 12, 2008)

We TaRdED said:


> Why must you call it "nut-ball conspiracy theory "beliefs"" when 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
> 
> Yes, some people have different "theories" about what really happened on 911, but its obvious to me that the official report is far from logical.
> 
> ...


that video was so void of explanation on tower 7, I barely even got anything out of it. They gave a 5 second explanation that it had to do with structure fires? And that will somehow make the building fall at free fall speed?

Btw I just want to say, that if you believe the two towers fell at free fall speed from fires then you probably also believe the warren commissions "magic bullet" theory from the JFK assassination. Both things logically don't make sense.

It's simple physics, had the buildings collapsed from a fire near the tops floors, each floor would have fallen slower because they would have to smash into each other consecutively causing a substantial loss of momentum as each floor had to collapse onto the next. However if a building's base was attacked then the building would fall at free fall speed as there is nothing below it to support. All the floors would be falling at once, collapsing bottom to top just as the WTC towers fell.


----------



## Spitzered (Aug 12, 2008)

Well, remember the weight on top of the building, AC units, elevator equip, water supplies , I won't try to guess at the weight but it was considerable. Much of the structural integrity was in the outside walls, once they were damaged, and the fire from the fuel weaken the internal supports, its coming down and nothing was going to stop it. Even if each floor slowed the fall a second it would hard to see in visually. However terminal velocity? I don't believe so, it could be calculated by using film clips and measuring distance per second. I haven't done it and I haven't seen anything on it.

And the Warren commission was full of crap.


----------



## ccodiane (Aug 12, 2008)

Thousands of rats were released into the ground floor ducting system hours before the false flag operation commenced, each wearing its own little suicide vest, armed with timers, detonators, and nitroglycerin. At the exact moment the rats were released, a 1/4 ton block of Limburger cheese was deposited into the air conditioning condensers located on the top floor of the building. The race to the top was on. The rest, as we say, is history.


----------



## Spitzered (Aug 12, 2008)

Ack, people will actually buy into that.


----------



## GoodbyeFreedom (Aug 12, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> OK, GR ...
> 
> Explain how demolition experts were able to infiltrate offices to implant explosives in order to bring the buildings down. You've brought up Building #7 before ... so forget the main towers and concentrate on Building #7.
> 
> Vi


Why has Osama Bin Laden not been charged with anything related to 9/11? He claimed responsibility right? Proof is in the pudding.

Why was the steel from the towers immediately sent to be destroyed? (Melted down)

Why were 9/11 first responders told the air is safe to breathe? Nearly 70 percent of 9/11 first responders have debilitating respiratory illnesses.


----------



## ccodiane (Aug 12, 2008)

Somebody ask this guy nine questions, to counter his three.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 13, 2008)

Spitzered said:


> Well, remember the weight on top of the building, AC units, elevator equip, water supplies , I won't try to guess at the weight but it was considerable. Much of the structural integrity was in the outside walls, once they were damaged, and the fire from the fuel weaken the internal supports, its coming down and nothing was going to stop it. Even if each floor slowed the fall a second it would hard to see in visually. However terminal velocity? I don't believe so, it could be calculated by using film clips and measuring distance per second. I haven't done it and I haven't seen anything on it.
> 
> And the Warren commission was full of crap.



If each floor slowed it a second you would sure notice it. It would have taken the building an extra 1.5+almost2 minutes to fall. And if the burning jet fuel did all this damage how did that hijacker Mohammed atta's passport miraculously fall to the ground for the investigators to find? coicidentaly the only hard evidence he was on the plane. the video the media put out right away of him in the airport was from earlier that week or weeks. that one is strange as the largest piece of anything found from the buildings was like half a telephone.


----------



## medicineman (Aug 13, 2008)

And the Warren commission was full of crap.
You can take that to the bank!


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 13, 2008)

mexiblunt said:


> If each floor slowed it a second you would sure notice it. It would have taken the building an extra 1.5+almost2 minutes to fall. And if the burning jet fuel did all this damage *how did that hijacker Mohammed atta's passport miraculously fall to the ground for the investigators to find?* coicidentaly the only hard evidence he was on the plane. the video the media put out right away of him in the airport was from earlier that week or weeks. that one is strange as the largest piece of anything found from the buildings was like half a telephone.


Do we know this for a fact, or is this just another Internet blog thing? I mean, has anyone actually seen a picture of the passport that was taken from the wreckage? A picture that hasn't been doctored?

Vi


----------



## GoodbyeFreedom (Aug 13, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Somebody ask this guy nine questions, to counter his three.


How about YOU do it Mr. Badass.


----------



## GoodbyeFreedom (Aug 13, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> Do we know this for a fact, or is this just another Internet blog thing? I mean, has anyone actually seen a picture of the passport that was taken from the wreckage? A picture that hasn't been doctored?
> 
> Vi


"ABCNEWS sources identify another hijacker as Satan Suqami, a Saudi national on American Airlines Flight 11, whose passport was recovered in the rubble."

ABCNEWS.com : Suspects ID'd; Rescue Efforts Continue

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]

[/FONT] [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport.[/FONT]

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/guardian_usluckyfinds.html


----------



## ccodiane (Aug 13, 2008)

ooooooneeee aaaaaaahhhhhhh aaaahhhh aaaahhhh ahhh

twooooo aaahh ah ahhh aaahhh aaah ah a

threeeeee aaahh ahhhh ahhhh ahhhhh aaaahhhhh

foooour ahhhh aaahhhhhh aaaahhhhhhhh aaahhhhh

(maybe this is more your speed)


----------



## GoodbyeFreedom (Aug 13, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> ooooooneeee aaaaaaahhhhhhh aaaahhhh aaaahhhh ahhh
> 
> twooooo aaahh ah ahhh aaahhh aaah ah a
> 
> ...


----------



## AchillesLast (Aug 13, 2008)

ccodiane said:


> Thousands of rats were released into the ground floor ducting system hours before the false flag operation commenced, each wearing its own little suicide vest, armed with timers, detonators, and nitroglycerin. At the exact moment the rats were released, a 1/4 ton block of Limburger cheese was deposited into the air conditioning condensers located on the top floor of the building. The race to the top was on. The rest, as we say, is history.


I thought that was the dumbest ending for an action movie ever btw.

(in reference to the movie Wanted...)


----------



## ccodiane (Aug 13, 2008)

Action movies are for fags.....I don't watch them.


----------



## We TaRdED (Aug 13, 2008)

AchillesLast said:


> that video was so void of explanation on tower 7, I barely even got anything out of it. They gave a 5 second explanation that it had to do with structure fires? And that will somehow make the building fall at free fall speed?
> 
> Btw I just want to say, that if you believe the two towers fell at free fall speed from fires then you probably also believe the warren commissions "magic bullet" theory from the JFK assassination. Both things logically don't make sense.
> 
> It's simple physics, had the buildings collapsed from a fire near the tops floors, each floor would have fallen slower because they would have to smash into each other consecutively causing a substantial loss of momentum as each floor had to collapse onto the next. However if a building's base was attacked then the building would fall at free fall speed as there is nothing below it to support. All the floors would be falling at once, collapsing bottom to top just as the WTC towers fell.


Exactly my point! +Rept to you! (FYI- I think I sent a blank +Rep, by mistake.. I usually sign my Reps but I pressed the enter button by accident)

(I'm not a doctor but) I'm very good with math, physics, science, engineering and etc. I have done copious amounts of research on the incursions of 9/11. I don't spend my time arguing with people when all a person needs to do is have the mentality of a 4th grader to see that WTC7 was taken down by something else besides "office fires".

People will argue for hours going on how the office fires ruined the integrity of the building and blah blah blah... But, if a person can honestly look at how WTC7 feel, and actually believe that it was exclusively because of "office fires" than I feel bad for these people. A lot of people are in denial because they can't handle the truth or they don't want to.

I don't think I'm any better than anyone, but I do believe some people ARE somewhat brainwashed. I honestly don't blame the people, maybe their parents put them in front of the TV instead of paying attention to their kids. 

I'm not saying that people are stupid (maybe a little uninformed though) if they can't see how WTC7 was taken down by something other than "office fires", but I am asking people to look at it again with an open mind. Its almost synonymous to when people believed the Earth was flat. The consensus was 'the Earth is flat', just because thats what they were told, and even though it WAS WRONG!

*
The REVOLUTION has begun!*

RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE~


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> OK, GR ...
> 
> Explain how demolition experts were able to infiltrate offices to implant explosives in order to bring the buildings down. You've brought up Building #7 before ... so forget the main towers and concentrate on Building #7.
> 
> Vi


Put in under the guise of construction work prior to 911 ... that's how ... it would be easy to pull off too ... in fact there are reports speculating on the matter ... a full non partisan investigation ... like the Canadians and Japanese want to have would probably reveal why they destroyed the evidence of the buildings so quickly ... 

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Beslan School Massacre holds clues for WTC - Pentagon/911 ?*[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*- "Construction/Maintainance "Plumbers" "hide Explosives during Summer Break" : a New York - Washington - Memphis' link ?

*[/FONT]*Micro Nukes (WMD) in the WTC - 911 Inside/Outside Job*


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 14, 2008)

GR Sez ...

"Put in under the guise of construction work prior to 911 ... that's how ... it would be easy to pull off too ... in fact *there are reports speculating on the matter* ... a full non partisan investigation ... like the Canadians and Japanese want to have would probably reveal why they destroyed the evidence of the buildings so quickly ... "

Well thank God we have people taking this "speculation" as fact! 

Vi


----------



## GoodbyeFreedom (Aug 14, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> GR Sez ...
> 
> "Put in under the guise of construction work prior to 911 ... that's how ... it would be easy to pull off too ... in fact *there are reports speculating on the matter* ... a full non partisan investigation ... like the Canadians and Japanese want to have would probably reveal why they destroyed the evidence of the buildings so quickly ... "
> 
> ...


Its OBVIOUS that the US Government would never lie to the people...

thank god.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 15, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> GR Sez ...
> 
> "Put in under the guise of construction work prior to 911 ... that's how ... it would be easy to pull off too ... in fact *there are reports speculating on the matter* ... a full non partisan investigation ... like the Canadians and Japanese want to have would probably reveal why they destroyed the evidence of the buildings so quickly ... "
> 
> ...


*yea ... and with a FULL INVESTIGATION would probably show that is EXACTLY what happen *

... once again your bushie mind blanks out the facts ... no surprise there ... kiss-ass


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 15, 2008)

You're funny, GR. 

I asked you to present facts and you post "speculation." Then you turn around and call me a "Bushie" and say that my mind is blanking out "facts." 

Mind boggling, simply mindboggling. 

Vi


----------



## medicineman (Aug 15, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> You're funny, GR.
> 
> I asked you to present facts and you post "speculation." Then you turn around and call me a "Bushie" and say that my mind is blanking out "facts."
> 
> ...


 Uhhh, Vi, you first must have a mind to Boggle,~LOL~.


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 15, 2008)

medicineman said:


> Uhhh, Vi, you first must have a mind to Boggle,~LOL~.


Well, I don't see you doing much "boggling" around here as of late. Now go to the other thread and take the political test, ya big chicken. 

Vi


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 15, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> You're funny, GR.
> 
> I asked you to present facts and you post "speculation." Then you turn around and call me a "Bushie" and say that my mind is blanking out "facts."
> 
> ...


Bullshit ... you ask me to explain how they did it ... and I did ... it may not be enough for you ... but it's certainly enough for Japan, Canada, Germany and other countries that don't buy the lie ... why do they want an independent investigation if this is just a nut-job conspiracy? Can't answer that one can you ...  
You bushies may have a hard time seeing and dealing with the truth but at least most outside the US have no trouble what so ever ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 21, 2008)

Here is the "official" US government story of what happen to WTC building 7 ... for the record I will put it up ...

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
"Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event. 
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses."



Okay ....

WMP
9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder..."

Prison Planet
"Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it..."

*Larry Silverstein, WTC 7,
and the 9/11 Demolition*

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

So there you have it ... you decide ... once you view the reports ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 22, 2008)

Heres an interesting op-ed from Pravda ... check it ...
*Impeachment is Not Enough*


A *preponderance of evidence* shows that the highest officials of the Bush Administration, in collusion with many other officials from the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, FEMA, NSA, NORAD, New York City officials, air-traffic contollers, airline executives, controlled demolitions experts, computer graphics technicians, media executives, and others together planned and committed the horrible attacks of 9/11/2001 against the Pentagon and the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 9/11 attacks were immediately blamed on some bogus 'Arab highjackers', a half dozen of whom were later confirmed to be still alive, and therefore innocent, after the 9/11 attacks. The *false-flag* 9/11 attacks provided the excuse for the US government's 'War on Terrorism', the chief purpose of which is for the USA to gain control of the lucrative oil fields of the Middle East.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 22, 2008)

Here's another take on that phony report put out but the NIST ... 

http://lataan.blogspot.com/2008/08/mainstream-media-propaganda-effort-on.htmlTHE MAINSTREAM MEDIA PROPAGANDA EFFORT ON NEW WTC7 COLLAPSE THEORY FALLS IN A HEAP. 
Yesterdays release of the National Institute of Standards and Technologys (NIST) report on the collapse of WTC7 seems to have been carefully coordinated with the mainstream media in an all-out propaganda effort to debunk so-called conspiracy theories that insist that WTC7 collapsed after being rigged with demolition charges which would infer that, due to time constraints, could only have been placed in the building before 9/11.

I've said it once I'll say it again ... you have to be a real *dumbass* to believe a skyscraper design to withstand fire can come crashing down in 10 sec ... yet other skyscrapers that burn much longer didn't collapse and are still being used today.
_  Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building,
burned for 17 hours over 26 floors
 Los Angeles, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories,
burned for 3.5 hours over 5 floors
 Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories,
burned for 18 hours over 8 floors
 New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories,
burned for six hours

Why didn't any of these buildings fall straight down in 10 sec? They burned as long or longer ... tell us that nay sayers ... why? Not one of you have address this FACT ...
_


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 22, 2008)

Man ... it didn't take the truthseeker long to trash the NIST's bullshit with the facts ... here's yet another take on the report ...

Surprise! NIST concludes fire dropped WTC7 at free-fall into its own footprint
But NIST has their own theories replete with colorful computer generated graphics showing fires spreading (asymetrically) and girders falling in their complicated report. But wait.... I saw the video of the building falling and I saw what appears to be a classic controlled demolition. I hypothesize controlled demolition as the primary hypothesis - but NIST doesn't. I wonder why? Richard Gage from AE*911truth begs to differ with NIST especially since tons of molten metal were found 21 days after the attack.

... and another still ...
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.htmlhttp://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html*http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html[URL="http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html"]Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel*[/url]
*NIST also said: "No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses." Oh, really?


Nay sayers can't plead ignorance, because the *FACTS* have been posted ... so they are just plain ...


----------



## omegafarmer (Aug 24, 2008)

*Saturday, August 23, 2008*

* NTSB Filght Data: Official 'Explanation' of Flight 93 is a Criminal Fraud! *

According to official NTSB Flight Data, Flight 93 could not possibly have crashed in the field in PA. The flight data flatly contradicts Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. Guess which one is lying!

I recently posted that NTSB data indicates Flight 77 never dropped below 273 feet! Therefore, Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only 71 feet tall. Secondly, according to the black box data, Flight 77 could not have damaged the light poles. 77 was much too high (the poles are only 40 feet) and on the wrong trajectory. Now, Damien, a regular contributor to this blog, has put together an exhaustive survey of equally disturbing holes in the official theories concerning Flight 93 which we have been expected to believe crashed in PA. Following is Damien's report --a damning critique and proof that that the Bush cabal cover stories about Flight 93 are simply impossible and violate the recently discussed "Occam's Razo' by raising infinitely more questions than Bush's theories have been able to explain. ​ Following is Damien's report: The evidence discrepancies from Flight 77 are echoed in the absurdities of Flight 93. This from Pilots for 911 Truth:1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.

2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.

3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.

4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.

5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

That's right,* the flight data recorder has the plane impacting upside down at 40 degrees to the horizontal. *You could google all day and never find an image showing where the huge tail hit the ground! You will only ever see vertical impact photos. The only photo shows a smoke plume more consistent with a smaller ordinance explosion. There are no heavy kerosene fumes filling the sky. According to FDR data there was 17.01 tons (5,500 gals) of fuel left at time of impact. Yet the EPA found no ground contamination from jet fuel. Unbelievable!

_"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," witness Jim Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth." - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)_

The impact hole is 75' wide and the aircraft is 125' feet wide. (See also here)

The volume of debris is too small. The only photos released by the authorities showing small debris. Multiple witnesses at the Shanksville site reported on the lack of debris. The FBI claims that it recovers 95 percent of the plane and sent it on to United Airlines. That would be about 60 tons of plane debris. I defy anyone to produce evidence that 60 tons of plane debris was taken from Shankesville or forwarded to UA. Lies!

Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller reported that they had found "unspecified human remains and enough minuscule pieces of plane debris to fill one-third of a dumpster." That's right, 1/3 of a dumpster! This dumpster!

The "recovered" remains, allegedly from Fl93, are anomalous and are suggestive of evidence tampering. -- A terrorist passport found in the streets of New York that "survived" the WTC attacks and a Koran and materials recovered from Mohammed Atta's car all apear to be staged evidence, as does the unmarked red bandana and terrorist driver's licence recovered at Shanksville. When 200 airline seats are totally destroyed you don't expect to find unmarked red bandanas and bibles!

The human remains (600 lbs) does not compare with the passenger weights (4 tons). Modern, high temperature crematoria take 2 hours to burn bodies yet we are expected to believe that 4 tons of human remains disappeared ("vaporised") in an instant leaving only 150- 600lbs of tissue shreds. The temperatures were simply not high enough to dispose of that volume of human remains in such a small time frame. If the bodies burned above ground they would have left a recognizable offensive smell (burnt tissue like at a BBQ) that would have been noticed just like at other aircraft crash sites. Carbon based objects such as humans, luggage and seating require oxygen to burn. If they were burned above ground they would have produced larger amounts of smoke than was seen. Had they passed into the ground they would not have burned because there was no oxygen; they might have been shredded, but not consumed by fire. So if the seats burned above ground then 200 seat frames would be there somehwhere. They're not. Instead, we have this.

Officially, the largest piece found of Fl 93 was a seven-foot-long piece of the fuselage skin, including four windows. Given that the wings are 125' wide with a 40' high tail then that's a load of baloney right there!

There is no verifiable evidence chain of custody on the debris, human remains or FDR.

The FBI refused to allow either the FAA or NTSB carry out investigations required of them by law and which they had undertaken as standard procedure for ALL previous aircraft crashes occuring in the US over many decades. The FBI did NOT carry out any forensic evaluation of the crash nor permit anyone else to do so. That's a profoundly unprofessional course of action given that one caller from Fl 93 late in the flight said a bomb had possibly blown up in the plane.

Neither the NTSB or the FAA handled the evidence, only the FBI. Isnt that their job? -- yes it is, but they have no legal authority to prohibit, hinder or obstruct legally mandated inquiries by the FAA and the NTSB that should have taken place. They were forbidden from doing so. The FBI also had clear obligations in regard to the handling of evidence which they failed to fulfill. The usual investigative procedures in regard to flight crashes and the handling of evidence were not followed in regard to 911.

Whatever happened at Shanksville, the official 911 account is baloney! In Aug 2006 a Russian plane, almost identical in size to Fl93, crashed in Siberia. They recovered 140 bodies and huge amounts a debris. But nothing like that at Shankesville. --*Damien*Clearly, nothing said by the Bush administration about 911 has been true. 

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 'Arab Hijackers' were on board Flight 77. That is 'no evidence', let alone proof!
There was never any evidence to support the 'Bush' claim that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon; indeed, official NTSB data indicates that Flight 77 COULD NOT have crashed into the Pentagon.That's a major, if not fatal, hole in his theory.
In New York, Building 7 is seen to have fallen in a 'controlled demolition', admitted to by Larry Silverstein who said the building had been 'pulled'.Why is this still debated?
Also in New York, numerous witnesses reported evidence of either THERMATE or THERMITE at the wreckage of the TwinTowers! Certainly, kerosene fires could not have and didn't create the 'controlled demolition', in which both towers collapsed precisely into their own footprints.

It is said that those falls were the first of their type. Certainly, unless another inside job is planned, no other towers will ever fall so precisely as the result of a airliner crash and/or a kerosene fire.

The only intelligent conclusion: *neither* collapse in New York was the result of an airliner crash.
Conan Doyle, by way of his character Sherlock Holmes, left us an invaluable and valid lesson in logic: ''When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!" Thanks to the efforts of thousands of folk though out the nation and the world, one must now conclude hat Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911 is not only impossible, it is a deliberate and consistent lie!

911 was a crime.

Evidence of that crime was ordered destroyed by George W. Bush. That, in and of itself, is yet another crime. Moreover, there is a _prima facie_ case of 'obstruction of justice' against GWB right now in connection with 911. There is probable cause to begin a federal grand jury investigation of the role he most probably played in helping to plan and execute 911. There is also the possibility that it was planned by higher-ups in his administration and Bush, himself, merely signed off on it with the expectation that it would make of him a dictator, like the Riechstag Fire helped Hitler create a Third Reich.

As far as I am concerned, the impossible --Bush';s official theory --has been eliminated; therefore, what remains however implausible is the truth. I don't think I have to spell that out for you. The time has come to demand that the federal grand jury in White Plains New York 'round up the usual suspects' and put them under oath! If and when they lie under oath, charges of perjury and obstruction of justice must follow.

"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." (George H.W. "Poppy" Bush)*It's never too late to do the right thing!*​


----------



## omegafarmer (Aug 24, 2008)

i find it telling that before 9/11 you could watch several demolitions a week on the tube but since 9/11 all of those shows disappeared from TV. It`s just too obvious when you start comparing other controlled demolitions to the WTC ones


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 24, 2008)

omegafarmer said:


> i find it telling that before 9/11 you could watch several demolitions a week on the tube but since 9/11 all of those shows disappeared from TV. It`s just too obvious when you start comparing other controlled demolitions to the WTC ones


How many channels do you get? I've seen several controlled building demolitions since 9-11 ... but then I have the Dish and get more channels than I can watch. The last one I saw was a rerun of either the Flamingo or the Stardust hotel in Las Vegas ... I forget which.

Vi


----------



## omegafarmer (Aug 24, 2008)

guess its been long enough. are the comedians doing 911 jokes yet?


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 25, 2008)

omegafarmer said:


> guess its been long enough. *are the comedians doing 911 jokes yet?*


GrowRebel is the resident 9/11 comedian. 

Vi


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 25, 2008)

While Vi continue to be asleep at the wheel ... that constantly tosses in his sleep ... still don't see you disputing this comedian ... and we all know it's because you can't ... kiss-ass


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 25, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> While Vi continue to be asleep at the wheel ... that constantly tosses in his sleep ... still don't see you disputing this comedian ... and we all know it's because you can't ...


On the contrary, I've disputed you many times. Remember? ... I keep pointing out that you present "speculation" as fact.

Vi


----------



## Arraya (Aug 26, 2008)

Yeah, 3 buildings fall precisely into their footprint at near free fall speed., two hit by planes, one falls by fire. While all the people responsible for the security failure get promoted and the people in charge of the government wrote on how it would be nice to have a "catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor" to advance their foreign policy agenda just two years earlier. I'm sure it was exactly how they told us 

I recommend: 

Painful Deceptions Painful Deceptions - 84 min

911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demolitions (Full - 1ed.) 911 Mysteries - 91 min

911 Ripple Effect - Now Available on DVD 911 Ripple Effect - 87 min

Please note also - that the list is long and honorable of seekers of revealing more truth about 911. Please visit and see for yourself:

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 27, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> On the contrary, I've disputed you many times. Remember? ... I keep pointing out that you present "speculation" as fact.
> 
> Vi


Oh yeah ... you said it was "speculation" ... and expected us to take you word without proof ... except we don't ...


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 28, 2008)

GrowRebel said:


> Oh yeah ... you said it was "speculation" ... and expected us to take you word without proof ... except we don't ...


On the contrary, one of the articles that you presented as "fact" said it was speculation. Here's the excerpt from the article you posted:

"Put in under the guise of construction work prior to 911 ... that's how ... it would be easy to pull off too ... in fact *there are reports speculating on the matter* ... a full non partisan investigation ... like the Canadians and Japanese want to have would probably reveal why they destroyed the evidence of the buildings so quickly ... 

Your turn ... 

Vi


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 28, 2008)

... and once again you focus on the speculation on ONE issue ... and over look the INVESTIGATION ... but what else is newkiss-ass


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 29, 2008)

Well, I've got to hand it to you, GR. If nothing else, you're persistent. Wrong ... but persistent.

Vi


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 30, 2008)

I'm not wrong ... and there are plenty of reports in this thread to prove it ... *911 was an inside job* ... there is nothing to prove otherwise ... all so called "official" reports have been completely debunked ... just because you can't except the obvious doesn't mean most of us can't ... you're simply one of those people that can't handle or accept the truth ... asleep at the wheel ...


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 30, 2008)

Ahh, geeze ... this is the never ending thread. 

Vi


----------



## natrone23 (Aug 31, 2008)

it really is sad, the lack critical thinking displayed by truthers heroes in their own mind


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 31, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

... and what "lack of critical thinking" is that? ... to accept government lies without question? ... what is your idea of "the lack of critical thinking" ... this should be good ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 9, 2008)

Here's a poll on 911 ....

Poll on left


----------



## Microdizzey (Sep 10, 2008)

YouTube - Jesse Ventura Speech Rally for the Republic 9/02/08 Pt. 3

when 9/11 happened, every news station reported that Osama Bin Laden was to blame. Yet this man is STILL not charged for the attack?


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 10, 2008)

Put a the speech up a page ago ... yep Bin Laden has not been charged ... because he has nothing to do with it ... look to the WH for the real criminals ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2008)

To commemorate the day ... more evidence of the false flag attack on the US ... 

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=11648[URL="http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=11648"]Visual Evidence that Flight 93 Story Is A Fraud [/url]
This is a rare video that clearly shows that all is not as it
appears regarding 9-11. Flight 93 was said to have crashed after
passengers struggled with terrorists. But there was never any crash
debris. Please show this video to others.

Can do 

http://www.rebelnews.org/politics/americas/nader-calls-for-new-9%1011-investigation-20080910388/[URL="http://www.rebelnews.org/politics/americas/nader-calls-for-new-9%1011-investigation-20080910388/"]Nader Calls For New 9/11 Investigation [/url]
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader pledged support for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 Monday, commenting that the 9/11 Commission was "flawed, right from the get go".

You can say that again ... what is needed is an "independent" investigation ... *non-partisan* group to bring out all the facts and have those assholes testify *under oath* ... then we can prove 911 was another US false flag operation ... more later ...


----------



## King Bong (Sep 11, 2008)

You have "dishonerable mention" in the "9/11: Shame On You" thread GrowRebel.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2008)

No ... shame on you ... for putting your head in the sand ... The "dishonor" is allowing the war criminals that committed this crime with a false flag operation to continue to occupy the WH and other high government offices ... the "dishonor" is they are not in prison for the murder of 3000 people ... the "dishonor" is pretending the government isn't behind this ... your idea and my idea of "dishonor" are two very different things ... 

You don't even know what you are talking about ... where is the "dishonor"? Because people what the truth? Because most people believe it was a false flag operation? Or because it ruins your idea of america ... land of the free protector of rights and the innocent?

... If you can't handle the *truth* of what happened that day don't read my thread


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2008)

*https://www.rollitup.org/content/who-did-9-11WHO DID 9-11?*

By: http://whatreallyhappened.com/user/1Webmaster


Osama

2% (31 votes) 
Israel

3% (43 votes) 
US

6% (74 votes) 
US and Israel

88% (1094 votes) 
Total votes: 1242

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.htmlThe Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11
The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. 

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.htmlThe 9/11 USAF Stand Down
On 9/11 the world's only military superpower was apparently oblivious to the location of rogue airliners in it's airspace for over an hour, and military commanders were left perplexed on how to deal with the situation of hijackers using these planes as flying bombs. 

This confusion resulted in fighter jets flying around aimlessly whilst the hierarchy fully assessed what was going on, and this total lack of cohesion ultimately led to the loss of nearly 3000 lives. 

All that was required to overcome America's military might on 9/11 were 19 hijackers on 4 airliners.
Does this sound plausible to you?
It's what you're expected to believe.


Here's a *biggie* I'm sure those that cry "shame on you" can't explain ... 



http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.htmlAt Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
The muscle hijackers 'picked by bin Ladin':​ Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers) _Both Alive_, Abdul Aziz al Omari _Alive_, Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri _Alive_, Saeed al Ghamdi _Alive_, Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami _Alive_, Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi _Alive _(the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi). 
_How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to alive 'hijackers'?_


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2008)

... yep we must commemorate this day of very high crimes 

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htmlThermite and the WTC Collapses





This eight ton steel I-beam is six inches thick. It was selected to be preserved for future generations for the near perfect horseshoe bend ... it bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_horseshoe.wmvWMV video download (597kB)


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_charges.htmlShaped Charges and the World Trade Center Collapses
The job of a shaped charge is to cut steel H-beams. "The way we do this is by cutting the beam at an angle which through a series of beams cut at the same angle will tend to make the building shift over and 'walk'"






http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_cutter.htmlEvidence of Demolition Charges In WTC 2
"It [WTC 2] started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all." [ASNE] "I saw small explosions on each floor." [Wing TV]
"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." [Ed Cachia - Firefighter [Engine 53]]


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC
[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear.


----------



## Microdizzey (Sep 11, 2008)

there's nothing you can do GrowRebel. people will not stand up and question things anymore. do what you can to keep you and your family safe.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 12, 2008)

Nope ... you are wrong ... there is something I can do ... and that is to keep folks informed ... check it out people ... Russia Today doesn't buy the "official" 911 bullshit either ... 
Who was involved in 9/11? Documentary reveals shocking facts
On the anniversary of 9/11, an Italian-produced documentary called ZERO, investigating the tragedy, is opening in Russia. The authors believe that the U.S. official version of events surrounding the attacks can't be true.* U.S. networks have rejected the film.*

Gee ... I wonder why ... 

Looks like most of the other countries know 911 was a *false flag* attack created by the US and Israel to keep people afraid so they can commit war crimes with impunity ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 14, 2008)

Before I go into the Ventura press conference I would like to comment on the 911 discussion Maher had on his show this week ... of course I was disappointed ... and I'm sure they made sure they didn't have anyone on that would express the opinion 911 was a false flag operation ... how they can accept the official story is beyond all reasoning ... 

Anyway Ventura had a press conference with I guess some local media ... there could have been some corporate media there, but I don't know for sure ... but he tore them a new asshole many times ... it's about 30 minutes ... the first couple of minutes you can bypass ... that just a lot of walking a casual talk ... but the video is well would watching ... 

http://thestateoftruth.com/2008/09/jesse-ventura-body-slams-911-conspiracy-debunkers-for-30-minutes/VIDEO - Jesse Ventura BODY SLAMS 911 Conspiracy Debunkers, for 30 Minutes!

Again is back to basic common sense ... building design to withstand an impact of a 727 ... that has been fire proof ... do not come crashing down after burning a hour ... it just doesn't happen ... I can honestly say ... you are an  and  at the wheel ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 17, 2008)

Three US rap stars denounce the September 11th lie

Three of the most famous US rap stars, Mb Def, Immortal Technique and Eminem composed a song to denounce the September 11th lie :  Tell the Truth, Nigga ! .

Man, you hear this bullshit they be talkin 
Every day, man 
Its like these motherfuckers is just like professional liars  
YouknowwhatImsayin? Its wild 
Listen
Bin Laden didnt blow up the projects 
It was you, nigga 
Tell the truth, nigga 
(Bush knocked down the towers) 
Tell the truth, nigga 
(Bush knocked down the towers) 
Tell the truth, nigga


... and how many millions listen to these guys?


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 8, 2008)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/details-emerge-on-new-wtc-collapse-videos.htmlDetails Emerge on new WTC Collapse Videos 
This source also dismisses internet speculation that the person who took the footage was connected in any way to the collapses themselves. A number of posters on internet discussion boards and forums have claimed that the WTC7 video is suspicious as it zooms out just moments before the collapse, as if the person taking the footage knew what was about to happen.


I absolutely adore "WeAreChange" ... those boys got balls ... more power to them ... these confrontational videos are quite good ... check it ... 

WeAreCHANGE Destroys Karl Rove


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XcD5oA26EVideo - Zelikow confronted by activist about his work on 9/11 Commission.
[youtube]L2XcD5oA26E[/youtube]
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs hosted a speaking event by the director of the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Philip Zelikow. When asked real questions by the independent media, he had no answers. Please do your part in researching the 9/11 cover up.

http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/11/03/newly-discovered-footage-of-building-seven-and-north-tower-collapse/Newly discovered footage of Building Seven and North Tower collapse
Astounding new video footage of Building 7 & the North World Trade Center Tower has suddenly appeared on the net posted by an anonymous user November 1st, 2008...


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 10, 2008)

Now where would this forum be without the 911 thread? 

*Bishop Richard Williamson speaks out against the official theory of the events of 9/11.*
[youtube]EJhfQSspj2Q[/youtube]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ex-isi-chief-gul-exposes-911-inside-job.htmlEx-ISI Chief Gul Exposes 9/11 Inside Job 

Gee ... I wonder why the US government couldn't produce the evidence of Bin Laden's involvement ... what's wrong with this picture?
*
**"War on Terror" (TM) The First Month HD*
[youtube]_Gb1C4ahJvw&fmt=22[/youtube]


... and what about this ... all you folks that believe the government's official "story" ...

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8503300169FLASHBACK: FBI Declares Lack of Evidence to Connect Bin Laden to 9/11
Despite all hues and cries by the US officials and media as well as those of the west that the Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden are the most wanted people for their direct role in September 11th terrorist attacks, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says that it has no evidence in this regard, raising more suspicion over all the speculations the US tried to forge in the world public opinion.

You people seem to keep forgetting Bin Laden is dead ... and that he never claim responsibility for 911 ... in fact he said he had nothing to do with it ... why don't you government believers address this?

... oh an this is for the poster that boasted the NIST report about fire and the planes being the only cause for those buildings falling ... 

http://rattube.com/blog1/2008/12/08/wtc7-nist-finally-admits-freefall/WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall
In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall


... and here's what the in coming administration ... the *first legitimate one in 8 years* ... thinks about 911 ...


http://www.noonehastodietomorrow.com/resistance/911/592?task=viewchange.org Deletes New 9/11 Investigation Idea Even Though It Had Most Votes


... and if you have the time ... here's a nice 73 min. movie for ye ... 



http://www.videocommunity.com/pc/pc/cat/212/display/7167hi-res video--false flag 9/11


It's just like that bishop said in the first video ... you have to be pretty whacked in the head to accept the "official story" the government put out ... kiss-ass


Well ... I've said it plenty of times too ... but with some folks that hang out here ... you can't said it enough!


----------



## ANC (Dec 10, 2008)

What I find strange, is, in a world as diverse as ours, why is there only basicaly 2 political parties in the US?

I think they are both controlled by the same puppet masters and you guys are all being played off against each other. 

Give em enough bad cop and they will go for the good cop and go along with everything he wants...

In the end your distrust will grow to the point that you will probably wish for UN like control.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 10, 2008)

well ... when there are tons of unanswered question ... distrust is the most logical path ...


----------



## mistacurious (Dec 11, 2008)

Imagine there's no Heaven 
It's easy if you try 
No hell below us 
Above us only sky 
Imagine all the people 
Living for today 

Imagine there's no countries 
It isn't hard to do 
Nothing to kill or die for 
And no religion too 
Imagine all the people 
Living life in peace 

You may say that I'm a dreamer 
But I'm not the only one 
I hope someday you'll join us 
And the world will be as one 

Imagine no possessions 
I wonder if you can 
No need for greed or hunger 
A brotherhood of man 
Imagine all the people 
Sharing all the world 

You may say that I'm a dreamer 
But I'm not the only one 
I hope someday you'll join us 
And the world will live as one


----------



## Lord Bluntmasta (Dec 11, 2008)

if both sides do it how is it hypocrisy

unless you're saying everyone is a hypocrite which is completely plausible


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 11, 2008)

Lord Bluntmasta said:


> if both sides do it how is it hypocrisy
> 
> unless you're saying everyone is a hypocrite which is completely plausible


I don't get it ...  ... who are the sides? You mean the 911 truth seekers and the government acceptors? Or do you mean the dims and repukes?

More fuel for the fire ...
This is a very interesting op-ed about why Obama will not go after the *illegitimate bush and cheney* for war crimes ... he has some other interesting revelations I've never heard about ... must not have been checking out the internet news at that time ... 

*Obama will not prosecute Bush and Cheney*
*Along the same lines as his predecessors, President Obama will deal with the current financial crisis by pointing his finger at everyone except the real culprit, the Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S. executive and legislative branches and their partners in crime, the Wall Street financial institutions. 
*
[snip]
John F. Kennedy passed an Executive Order six months before his assassination. This Executive Order would allow the federal government to print money based on a silver standard. This order was the beginning of the end of the Federal Reserve Bank. 

[snip]
Just like Gerald Ford who struck a deal with Richard Nixon which called for his resignation instead of impeachment hearings. In this way, the *real reason* for the Watergate burglary would be kept secret and the complicit Congress would continue to look good. The real reason was that there was evidence, including photographic evidence, placing E. Howard Hunt in Dealey Square on the day JFK was killed. If you are too young to remember, E. Howard Hunt was one of the Watergate burglars. He recently died. Before he died, he made an audiotape in which *he clearly states that JFK assassination was a conspiracy of the CIA including Lyndon Baines Johnson*. Of course, the mainstream media did not pick up on this earth shattering news. 

Records show Johnson was a war criminal ... I'm not the least bit surprised he is implicated in the assassination ... he had the most to gain from it as well as the elite in control of the government ... 


[snip]
 the complicit mainstream media, Gerald Ford, on his deathbed, admitted that the Warren commission lied in its placement of the magic bullet as it went through JFKs shirt. If not for this lie, the magic bullet theory would fall apart and consequently the lone gunman explanation would not be plausible. 

When shit goes down ... like 911 ... and people say ... what happen to our defenses ... how did they get through all that? ... the answer is ... they didn't ... it's always an inside job ... a false flag operation ... so the elite can profit ... they just need the dumb public to focus on some made up enemy so they can commit war crimes with impunity ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 12, 2008)

Here's a video ... short ... on one of those false flag operations I was telling ya about ... check it ...

*Operation Northwoods Exposed (MUST-SEE VIDEO!!)*

[youtube]Rp3P2wDKQK4[/youtube]


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 2, 2009)

WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)
[youtube]Vz43hcKYBm4[/youtube]

*911 WAS an inside job ... deal with it ... *


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 30, 2009)

Found a great link a poster put up that list several false flag operations committed my the US and other countries ... thanks to the person that posted this ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 10, 2009)

Folks a skyscaper just like the towers that fell on 911 burned for several hours yet still stands ... and this is not the first time this has happen ... in fact this is what usually happens ... it's the towers that fell on 911 that did the unusual ... so if this and other buildings like it could withstand fire ... why couldn't the towers that fell in NY? The towers are the only ones in the history of skyscrapers to fall in 15 sec. straight down ... due to fire ... what's wrong with this picture?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/still-standing-the-building-that-proves-wtc-7-was-imploded.htmlStill Standing: The Building That Proves WTC 7 Was Imploded 
New videos of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire in Beijing highlight the vivid contrast between the damage it suffered as it was completely consumed by roaring flames, yet remained standing, and the comparative sporadic fires across just 8 floors that led to the complete free fall collapse of WTC 7.






I've said it once and I will say it again ... you have to be a complete and total idiot to believe those towers came down in 15 sec. totally collapsing due to fire and planes ...


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Feb 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Folks a skyscaper just like the towers that fell on 911 burned for several hours yet still stands ... and this is not the first time this has happen ... in fact this is what usually happens ... it's the towers that fell on 911 that did the unusual ... so if this and other buildings like it could withstand fire ... why couldn't the towers that fell in NY? The towers are the only ones in the history of skyscrapers to fall in 15 sec. straight down ... due to fire ... what's wrong with this picture?
> 
> Still Standing: The Building That Proves WTC 7 Was Imploded
> New videos of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire in Beijing highlight the vivid contrast between the damage it suffered as it was completely consumed by roaring flames, yet remained standing, and the comparative sporadic fires across just 8 floors that led to the complete free fall collapse of WTC 7.
> ...


Strange, but you are missing a large ass chunk of what happened on 9/11. Was a jet also crashed into the tower that burned?

No? Then why are you wasting our time by trying to compare it with the WTC Towers?


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 11, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> Strange, but you are missing a large ass chunk of what happened on 9/11. Was a jet also crashed into the tower that burned?
> 
> No? Then why are you wasting our time by trying to compare it with the WTC Towers?


Strange ... but you are missing a large ass chunk of what happen on 911 WTC 7 wasn't hit by anythang ... not that the planes played a part ...they didn't ...

Yes? ... so why are you wasting our time looking stupid? What happen to that building happened to WTC 7 ... 
... and folks notice the bowing in the building that what happens during a fire ... the building simply won't fall straight down in 15 sec. Only an idiot would believe something like that ...


----------



## natrone23 (Feb 11, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> .. the building simply won't fall straight down in 15 sec. Only an idiot would believe something like that ...


I didn't know buildings fall down in slow motion


----------



## mexiblunt (Feb 11, 2009)

Thats just it! Till this day most ppl don't even know that there was a building 7 that fell at demolition speeds. Sure everyone knows about the towers but what about WTC7? Alot of ppl Don't know about it yet the media reported it falling before it even happened? What gives? Are ppl afraid to question this? Or is it that they are somewhat pre-programed to what happened that day? You hear the words WTC and the first thing that pops into the head is two towers hit by planes, terrorists, enemy. case closed. WTC7 is the smoking gun. 
I could even believe that the two tall towers came down due to structural damage fire etc. But then I begin to question if all that was left from the two towers was steel and dust how did the one and only piece of hard evidence(a passport) from the hijacker flutter down to street level for investigators to find? Hmmm?


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 11, 2009)

natrone23 said:


> I didn't know buildings fall down in slow motion


They don't nor do they fall straight down in 15 sec after burning a couple of hours ... not without major help ... and a lot more than a jet plane and fire is needed to do what happen ... no other skyscraper with steel beams that has caught fire or hit by a plane ... has never come crashing straight down to the ground in 15 sec ... that's the point ... 
I've said it once I'll say it again ... you have to be a complete and total idiot to accept the official story as to why these towers fell ...


----------



## ilkhan (Feb 12, 2009)

Alex Jones is a nut because what he says does not fit in with most peoples perception of how they think the world works. People just don't want to know. They literally "can't handle the truth" it would shatter all the perceptions. If people knew Nazi's florinated water to sedate the populations of occupied Europe they would shit a brick so they don't listen. 

I remember the day it happened I remember the reports of the secondary explosions in the buildings I remember the firefighters saying their were bombs inside. Yet the next day all that disappeared down the memory hole. It became politically incorrect to talk about such things. Due to group think and propaganda its getting to were people are becoming ever-more violent in there resistance to even hear such things. 

You tell people the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag event designed to get us into a war in South-East Asia and show them the documents many go "yeah thats really bad, but what can we do about it??" It is just easier to not know and put this all out of mind. 

It is allot like 1984. memory hole, cognitive dissidence. Its scary but hell what are you supposed to do anyone who is in a position to stop them is already on board with them or knows that he will die fighting them and nobody will know why he really died.

If Obama was to be assassinated tomorrow it would be by a "White, Right-Wing Radical, with a copy of terrorstorm in his 1982 Datson with a Ron Paul bumper sticker." Guaranteed. (I.E. a patsy with all the paraphernalia) 

I still hold out hope for Obama, not much but a little. Lets see if he has the Balls for it if he is a true leader or another NWO crony (My bet is NWO crony) I wish RP would get an appointment to speak with him bring in some big know-it-all's from the Austrian camp of economics just so Obama could hear both sides of the economic story. That alone would give me a little reasurance he was at least listening to all the options.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 12, 2009)

Yep ... Jones is definitely a nut base on that reason ... there are so many people that simply can't handle the truth ... it's too much for their mind to handle... they simply can't accept that the government (elite) would kill it's own citizens to push an agenda ... they'd much rather believe a steel frame skyscraper ... something that has never in history happen before or after ... can come crashing straight down in it's own footprint in 15 sec. due to plane crash and fire ... impossible physically ... yet they are willing to accept the impossible than the truth. It makes much more sense to those afraid to face the truth that people in a cave got NORAD to stand down ... that's far more reasonable to them than some high official in the government did it ... They'd rather believe they have been "protected" since 911 rather than no more false flag attacks since then. It doesn't bother me if they choose to put their head in the sand and call those that aren't afraid to see the truth crazy ... that's fine with me ... I rather be crazy than stupid.


----------



## natrone23 (Feb 12, 2009)

your actually crazy and stupid


----------



## Microdizzey (Feb 12, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Yep ... Jones is definitely a nut base on that reason ... there are so many people that simply can't handle the truth ... it's too much for their mind to handle... they simply can't accept that the government (elite) would kill it's own citizens to push an agenda ... they'd much rather believe a steel frame skyscraper ... something that has never in history happen before or after ... can come crashing straight down in it's own footprint in 15 sec. due to plane crash and fire ... impossible physically ... yet they are willing to accept the impossible than the truth. It makes much more sense to those afraid to face the truth that people in a cave got NORAD to stand down ... that's far more reasonable to them than some high official in the government did it ... They'd rather believe they have been "protected" since 911 rather than no more false flag attacks since then. It doesn't bother me if they choose to put their head in the sand and call those that aren't afraid to see the truth crazy ... that's fine with me ... I rather be crazy than stupid.


Yup. It's not that they don't want to, it's that they CAN'T believe it. It sounds too intense to be real. Too much death, carnage, horror, torture, pain, suffering in movies and TV that people think the scenarios in those movies can't happen. Also, for a long while, we've been living in a safe and secure country, nothing was going wrong on a large scale. 

Now as our economy collapses and military is moved into the country, people are starting to wake up. Knowledge is increasing, as well as denial in those who don't want to wake up to reality yet.


As for Alex Jones, shame on anyone who talks trash about him. Look at what that man is doing. He's standing up against the darkness when most are brainwashed to think it doesn't exist. That is absolutely heroic. I know he's extreme, but can you blame him? He knows more information than anybody about the elite and their sick minds. I have my fair share of information, and it's hard for me to live in reality... without wanting to go into denial and be ignorant again....


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 12, 2009)

natrone23 said:


> your actually crazy and stupid


No where near as stupid as you ...


----------



## GrowRebel (May 31, 2009)

Folks there are a couple of groups that are working for a real investigation into 911 ... the people of NY city who have a legal right to force a real investigation 
[youtube]TzC3QI8JenU&feature=email[/youtube]
if you are from NYC please go and sign the petition for a real investigation.
... and a group of engineers and architects that have found evidence ... imagine my lack of surprise ... that those building came down *with explosives*. A local corporate own media station actually had an engineer on making the claim. The station was overwhelmed with thank you email for bring up the issue ... so much so they had to ask people to stop because it was interfering with getting other news. Check it out ...
Mainstream media outlet overwhelmed by "thank you" emails for interview questioning 9/11.
[youtube]oO2yT0uBQbM[/youtube]
After a mainstream TV station in Fresno, California presented a "fair and balanced" interview with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://ae911truth.org), the public (no doubt in shock and awe that this presentation was not subjected to the usual mainstream media self-censorship on 9/11 anomalies and unanswered questions) has overwhelmed the station's email system with thank you emails.
UPDATE: from http://911Truth.org ;
PLEASE NOTE: Although supportive notes to the station are a kind thought, and many of us have now sent them, we have been asked by the KMPH Executive Producer to not send anymore. Apparently, they've been so overwhelmed with 'thank you notes' they're missing other important emails like press releases and news tips, necessary to the continuing excellent production of Great Day. We encourage you to mail a thank you, if you feel compelled to do so, to their street address: KMPH FOX 26, 5111 E. McKinley Ave., Fresno, CA 93727. 

Groovy baby ... 


Transcript of Richard Gage explaining controlled demolition on KMPH in Fresno
Is the dam beginning to break? 
In this seven minute interview, Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years, is given plenty of time to explain the overwhelming evidence that the World Trade Center buildings were not brought down by the impact of the planes and ordinary office fires. Unlike the derision and condescension that typically greets 9/11 truth activists at mainstream outlets, these two anchors seem genuinely curious and open to the uncomfortable facts proving that explosives were detonated inside the Twin Towers.


Now, before everyone gets excited, remember that this is a FOX News Affiliate, so this broadcast was show only in Fresno, not nation-wide, and from the clock on screen, at 8:41 in the morning when viewership is very low.
This may be a "bone" tossed by FOX to the truth movement so that FOX can now claim to have covered 9-11 honestly and fairly in case things really unwrap down the road.WRH



Here's a longer video presentation from Mr. Gage ...
9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA
ENTIRE 2 HR VIDEO: 9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA
9/11 Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction Commercial architect Richard Gage (founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) presents *a watertight case for controlled demolition* of the three steel-building collapses at the World Trade Center, New York on 9/11/01. 
Includes *physicist* Steven Jones' updated *evidence of thermite*. Gage's website, www.ae911truth.org, is rapidly drawing building and engineering professionals to the 9/11 movement.


Corporate media continues to down play the truth ... in fact they claim people are mentally ill if they don't believe the government ... yeah ... right  ...what is unfortunate for them ... only the bushwhackes believe them.  



US News and World Report 911 hit piece backfires against the Propagandists
U.S. News and World Report ran an article on May 26th entitled&#8220;The Inner Worlds of Conspiracy Believers&#8221;. The intention was to *demonize *the truth/freedom movement by implying that *anyone who doesn&#8217;t believe the official story of 911 or anyone who mistrusts the government all-together is mentally ill*. But the real story isn&#8217;t the obvious moronic drivel concocted by this yellow-journalistic rag of disinformation, it is the collection of *well-informed* comments left on their site&#8230;. 147 so far, the overwhelming majority of which are *critical of the official conspiracy theory *and also of this collection of nonsense that tries to pass itself off as news.






Check it ... these are a few questions for the bushwhacked that believe the government's bullshit story about 911 ... since we are nuts then you shouldn't have any problems answering a few questions that concerns most of us so call nuts and tin foil hat peps ... 

*9/11 - The Basic Questions*
1. *Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?*
2. *Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial airlines, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?*
3. Why did FEMA lie about their presence in New York on 9/11?
4. *Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?*
5. Why did George H.W. Bush meet bin Laden's brother on 9/11?
6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters?
7. Where are the flight recorders?
8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?
9. *How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?*
10 Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11 cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?
11. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly?
12. How did they find the terrorist's cars at the airports so quickly?
13. Why did Shrub dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force?
14. Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93?
15. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA?
16. What exactly was the role of Henry Kissinger at UNOCAL?
17. When was it decided to cancel building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan?
18. *Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?*
19. *Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?*
20. *Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?*
21. Who gave the decision to give him a security job at the World Trade Center?
22. Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th?
23. *What about media reports that hijackers bought tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?*
*24. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists?*
25. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?
26. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow drivers licenses with photos to be Xeroxed?
27. *Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives?*
28. *How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them?*
29. *How did a hijackers passport miraculously appear near the WTC? Who found it and what time?*
30. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?
31. Why was there not one "innocent" Muslim on board any of these flights?
32. Did someone go through the passenger lists looking for Muslim names and label them as hijackers?

And there are plenty more questions ... about 300 ... where these came from ... you can focus on the ones in bold first ... then the others ... then you can try to dispute Mr. Gage ... but somehow I doubt I will get much response other than the standard "I'm a nut job" it easier for you to do that than dispute the obvious evidence. Watch ... and listen folks ... nothing but crickets ...


----------



## dirt clean (May 31, 2009)

as a high level government official I feel it is my duty to let you all know you are pretty much expendable.  seriously, the other day. . .


----------



## GrowRebel (May 31, 2009)

dirt clean said:


> as a high level government official I feel it is my duty to let you all know you are pretty much expendable.  seriously, the other day. . .


Well 911 pretty much proves we are expendable ... the other day... what?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 2, 2009)

Not one government bullshit believer can answer ANY of the questions I listed ... I wonder why?
911 was indeed an inside job ... no if's and's or but's about it.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 2, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Not one government bullshit believer can answer ANY of the questions I listed ... I wonder why?
> 911 was indeed an inside job ... no if's and's or but's about it.


Couldn't agree more man. I love how the "war on terrorism" has now transitioned to the war on the citizens. it honestly pisses me off how people enjoy to give up their civil liberties in the name of Safety. It's so ridiculous. If we give government an inch, we give them a mile. that's why we have to stand by our constitution 100%. if not it slowly deteriorates. That's why we can't allow torture, once we start using it on our "enemies" , they will use it on us. Study Nazi Germany people... history repeats itself.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 4, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Couldn't agree more man. I love how the "war on terrorism" has now transitioned to the war on the citizens. it honestly pisses me off how people enjoy to give up their civil liberties in the name of Safety. It's so ridiculous. If we give government an inch, we give them a mile. that's why we have to stand by our constitution 100%. if not it slowly deteriorates. That's why we can't allow torture, once we start using it on our "enemies" , they will use it on us. Study Nazi Germany people... history repeats itself.


And notice the bushwhacked   at the wheel like  Loftiest are what? That's right kids ... no where to be found ... and we all know why don't we ... just can't seem to answer the question ... but that's right ... they don't have to because I'm a loon ... great come back.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 5, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> *9/11 - The Basic Questions*
> 1. *Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?*


There are numerous warnings of terrorist attacks every day. This one was just chatter picked up from more than one source, so it made a briefing. There was nothing specific about it... save that it involved the airlines. No date, no plan. The airlines were put on alert. Every jet we have cannot be scrambled in an instant to be anywhere they are needed an instant later. This was out of the blue. 



GrowRebel said:


> 2. *Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial airlines, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?*


BEN-VENISTE: ...At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack. 

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet? 

ASHCROFT: ...Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel. 

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft. 

I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation. 

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft. 

These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th. 
http://www.nj.com/war/ledger/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/20040414_ashcroft.html



GrowRebel said:


> 4. *Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?*


Because we weren't sure what was going on when the first one hit. Details were sketchy... a plane went cowboy and hit a building... it could be an attack...



GrowRebel said:


> 9. *How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?*


He didn't. He is an idiot who misspeaks all the time. 



GrowRebel said:


> 18. *Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?*


What does Bill Clinton have to do with this?



GrowRebel said:


> 19. *Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?*


Can you please provide some evidence of this?



GrowRebel said:


> 20. *Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?*


Policy. That is what happens when you are investigated for mishandling sensitive data.



GrowRebel said:


> 23. *What about media reports that hijackers bought tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?*


They had been through several dry runs, and like with any plan, if something goes wrong, you move to plan B.



GrowRebel said:


> *24. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists?*


They did. I personally know they did as my wife flew 4 of them to their Boston connection. However the lists are readily available if you care to look. What you are blindly copying and pasting concerns a document created by CNN which listed victims names... for obvious reasons the terrorists were excluded. This was not a document they received from the airline, but compiled from their own sources and was in no way complete nor official.




GrowRebel said:


> 27. *Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives?*


They didn't. Feel free to provide evidence that they were coerced. And if the terrorists WEREN'T who they were supposed to be... why force people to use their phones and betray that... and why did nobody betray such?



GrowRebel said:


> 28. *How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them?*


Well, to my knowledge the flight plan was never changed... it was simply not followed.



GrowRebel said:


> 29. *How did a hijackers passport miraculously appear near the WTC? Who found it and what time?*


I would expect the police or firefighters who had set up a perimeter around the buildings. Lots of stuff was found on the ground. Shoes. An engine. Purses...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 5, 2009)

"I would expect the police or firefighters who had set up a perimeter around the buildings. Lots of stuff was found on the ground. Shoes. An engine. Purses..."

Yep all those items survived the amazingly hot inferno that was able to melt steel and cause buildings to fall. The fire was SOOOOO hot that it caused steel 40 floors below to weaken so much that when it finally "Pancaked" there was no resistance to the structure and it fell with no resistance. I can see an engine, since they have lots of titanium and would need the fires to be in excess of 5000F to burn. Purses? sure maybe from the building occupants.

Watch the video over and over, especially building 7, even the most basically educated person can easily discern that that building was purposely demo'd. If you can't then perhaps the education system failed you and indeed a child was left behind.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 5, 2009)

Are you aware that house fires burn hot enough to vaporize bone? Do you know that temperature? Without an accellerant. 

We are dealing with two very significant forces. The impact of a relatively delicate but heavy object into a mammoth steel framed object, AND a massive and immediate structure fire that is burning instantly at a minimum of 1300 deg (can't fact check self now, but as mem serves, jet A burns around there.) 

That structure fire across several floors immediately widespread and hot, burns and feeds on everything in this building so hot and intensely people choose to plummit to their deaths on the floors above it to escape the agony.

Its fcuking hot. You don't melt steel under those loads before it comes down on itself. It weakens and buckles long before reaching melting point. That doesn't happen till later. The impacts of the floors were colliding with measures so immense I have trouble not viewing them abstractly... And with each impact gaining more weight and momentum.

I am rambling,

2 forces:
Impact (which hurled people stuff throug the building VERY fast. Not much would make it through... The building steel framework would act like a net)

Instant hot structure fire which burned for hours.

I still don't see how -tha gubbament planting precision explosives finding the time to tear into the interior to expose the stresspoints in at least 5 places on 188 floors, then repairing that damage including paint, and nobody noticed- theory holds more water than what we all saw, where the crux, if not whole of your argument is "I wasn't expecting it to fall like that."


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 5, 2009)

the first and only 3 times a steal structure has ever fallen because of heat was on 9/11. fell in their footprint at the rate of gravity. 

i'm sorry. 19 people didn't change america by themselves. many live news stations heard "secondary explosions" before it collapsed. ppl were running out of the lobbies with cement dust all over them. wtc 7 fell and it didnt even get hit? i dont think so... there is more to the story than what we've been told.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 5, 2009)

Jesse Ventura's best interview ( IMO )

[youtube]EFIZwC6z4Kk&NR=1[/youtube]


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 5, 2009)

Great interview.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 5, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> the first and only 3 times a steal structure has ever fallen because of heat was on 9/11. fell in their footprint at the rate of gravity.


Well, 1 that is simply incorrect. Talk to a fireman. Steel structures melt almost every day in structure fires.

As to falling in its footprint... It is billions of pounds of concrete, thinner metals, etc ON GUIDED STEEL RAILS collapsing onto itself. There has never in the history of man been the destruction of anything so immense. Because you have a hard time wrapping your head around it, and the nature of tragedy on people look to something outlandish to make the more mundane reality less credible so that you can focus your fear on a familiar enemy. Your own government.



jfgordon1 said:


> i'm sorry. 19 people didn't change america by themselves. many live news stations heard "secondary explosions" before it collapsed. ppl were running out of the lobbies with cement dust all over them. wtc 7 fell and it didnt even get hit? i dont think so... there is more to the story than what we've been told.


No, 19 didn't. They are leigon. 

Then by all means... Show me a news station on the scene which corroborates that. Are you kidding me? News orgs EXIST to expose such a thing, it is how they justify their necessity to the country. Show me the pictures of people fleeing covered in dust (not soot) before the building fell. 


I again ask you for a feasible logistical answer to controlled demo prep without ANY of the millions who walked through the doors noticing. Security, maintenance, nobody. Not a peep. It has been more than 7 years and not a whisper.

Riddle me that. I have never in my life asked such an easy debate. I am not asking for facts, evidence, or even logic.

Just a logistically feasible flight of fancy that could even threaten the hope of "possible". 


It isn't. Go ahead. Try.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 5, 2009)

I bet Bush melted this steel too. Or was it the jews?

Car fire underneath.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 6, 2009)

Wow ... you are really stupid aren't you ... you'd rather disregard science and facts to blow some stupid bullshit out your ass ... well you won't get away with it on this thread I can promise you that. Let's break it down for the folks at home



what... huh? said:


> There are numerous warnings of terrorist attacks every day. This one was just chatter picked up from more than one source, so it made a briefing. There was nothing specific about it... save that it involved the airlines. No date, no plan. The airlines were put on alert. Every jet we have cannot be scrambled in an instant to be anywhere they are needed an instant later. This was out of the blue.


Bullshit ... if any plane ... and I mean any plane deviates from it course jets are scramble in minutes ... never in the history before or after 911 have jet not been scramble when a plane leaves it's fight path. And this time 4 planes in secure air space? Please. What do you take us for? It's obvious by the other posters they don't buy your bullshit either.
Folks those jet were told to stand down ... and it wasn't by some so called terrorist in a cave ... 
*The 9/11 USAF Stand Down*
The map below details the 9/11 planes' flightpaths and some of the military bases in those areas. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-flightpaths-bases.htmThe flights went through some of the most heavily militarized parts of the country.
So much for your "out of the blue" bullshit ... 



what... huh? said:


> BEN-VENISTE: ...At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.


You quote the testimony of Ashcroft in from of the phony 911 commission where people didn't have to testify under oath ... you expect us to believe what he said? Get real.




what... huh? said:


> Because we weren't sure what was going on when the first one hit. Details were sketchy... a plane went cowboy and hit a building... it could be an attack...


The Dog That Did Not Bark
Hijacked aircraft were wandering across the eastern half of the country. In theory no-one could have known how many planes had been hijacked. Two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, Bush was at a publicized photo opportunity at Booker Elementary School, and there is an airport only four miles from this School.
Details were sketchy ... yeah ... right. 




what... huh? said:


> He didn't. He is an idiot who misspeaks all the time.


No he didn't misspeak ... he gave away the plan.



what... huh? said:


> What does Bill Clinton have to do with this?


If he had the FBI close the files ... plenty ... 



what... huh? said:


> Can you please provide some evidence of this?


So far I have only been able to find the question ... when I have the time I'll investigate further ...if nothing can be found this question will have to be retracted.



what... huh? said:


> Policy. That is what happens when you are investigated for mishandling sensitive data.


So why wasn't he replaced? Why was the investigation stopped?



what... huh? said:


> They had been through several dry runs, and like with any plan, if something goes wrong, you move to plan B.


This is possible ... but the fact that some of the so called hijackers are still alive (see below) indicates this is not probable.




what... huh? said:


> They did. I personally know they did as my wife flew 4 of them to their Boston connection. However the lists are readily available if you care to look. What you are blindly copying and pasting concerns a document created by CNN which listed victims names... for obvious reasons the terrorists were excluded. This was not a document they received from the airline, but compiled from their own sources and was in no way complete nor official.


Oh the list are readily available ... yet you didn't "blindly" copy and paste something readily available to back your bullshit ... I wonder why? Put up or stfu on this one
And what about this?
*At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive*




what... huh? said:


> They didn't. Feel free to provide evidence that they were coerced. And if the terrorists WEREN'T who they were supposed to be... why force people to use their phones and betray that... and why did nobody betray such?


I have a problem with this question ... I would think people would want to call loved ones ... put the problem is it's impossible to use a cell phone So the big question is if they did make these phone calls how were they able to do so at 35000 feet?




what... huh? said:


> Well, to my knowledge the flight plan was never changed... it was simply not followed.


Your knowledge? And what evidence do you have to back your knowledge? Of course the flight plan changed! When they deviated to those buildings! Get real




what... huh? said:


> I would expect the police or firefighters who had set up a perimeter around the buildings. Lots of stuff was found on the ground. Shoes. An engine. Purses...


Shoes ... engine ... purses ... source? 


what... huh? said:


> Are you aware that house fires burn hot enough to vaporize bone? Do you know that temperature? Without an accellerant.


What complete and total bullshit ... the average house fire is between 800 and 1200 degrees and it takes 1600 degrees to vaporize bone ... 
 


what... huh? said:


> We are dealing with two very significant forces. The impact of a relatively delicate but heavy object into a mammoth steel framed object, AND a massive and immediate structure fire that is burning instantly at a minimum of 1300 deg (can't fact check self now, but as mem serves, jet A burns around there.)


Again you're blowing it out your ass ... those buildings according the Richard Gage and other architects like him state those building were design to withstand what happen. "delicate but heavy object" Bwaa ha ha ha ... bwaa ha ha ha .. The melting point for steel is 2700 degrees! So those fires weren't nearly hot enough ... so much for your bullshit.



what... huh? said:


> That structure fire across several floors immediately widespread and hot, burns and feeds on everything in this building so hot and intensely people choose to plummit to their deaths on the floors above it to escape the agony.


Duh ... it doesn't take much temperature to make someone want to get away from it in a hurry ... 



what... huh? said:


> Its fcuking hot. You don't melt steel under those loads before it comes down on itself. It weakens and buckles long before reaching melting point. That doesn't happen till later. The impacts of the floors were colliding with measures so immense I have trouble not viewing them abstractly... And with each impact gaining more weight and momentum.


Total bullshit and defies the laws of physics and how those buildings were design.
 


what... huh? said:


> I am rambling,


No you are babbling and blowing it out your ass ... 



what... huh? said:


> 2 forces:
> Impact (which hurled people stuff throug the building VERY fast. Not much would make it through... The building steel framework would act like a net)


Yeah ... right ... 



what... huh? said:


> Instant hot structure fire which burned for hours.


Wrong again ... the building only burn from 8:45 to 10:28 according to the 
"Official"911 Time linebefore it collapse in it's own footprint in less than 15 sec. which is impossible without help. Skyscrapers like them have burn longer in the pass that still stand and are used today ... go back to around page 17 ... I have a list of buildings that are still standing that burned way longer than those towers. How the hell do you explain that?



what... huh? said:


> I still don't see how -tha gubbament planting precision explosives finding the time to tear into the interior to expose the stresspoints in at least 5 places on 188 floors, then repairing that damage including paint, and nobody noticed- theory holds more water than what we all saw, where the crux, if not whole of your argument is "I wasn't expecting it to fall like that."


It's called construction work ... ever seen it? Workers come in do there thing under the guise of "construction work" ... plant the thermanite ... no one is the wiser ... "I wasn't expecting it to fall like that"? ... no ... *the law of physics* wasn't expecting it to fall like that.
You are pretty stupid with all the facts of the evidence presented to post such ridiculous and stupid comments.




what... huh? said:


> Well, 1 that is simply incorrect. Talk to a fireman. Steel structures melt almost every day in structure fires.


Bwaa ha ha ... steel structures melt everyday? Bullshit! Steel structures are sprayed with fireproofing material! Wrong again ... I have video posted in this thread ... around page 19 or so ... of firemen stating that they heard explosions right before the building collapes ... 



what... huh? said:


> As to falling in its footprint... It is billions of pounds of concrete, thinner metals, etc ON GUIDED STEEL RAILS collapsing onto itself. There has never in the history of man been the destruction of anything so immense. Because you have a hard time wrapping your head around it, and the nature of tragedy on people look to something outlandish to make the more mundane reality less credible so that you can focus your fear on a familiar enemy. Your own government.


Once again total bullshit ... it has already been established that these building do not collapse in 15 sec with out help ... what part of that can't YOU rap you head ... if you have one ... around the obvious.

The only thing "outlandish" is your bullshit explainations. 







what... huh? said:


> No, 19 didn't. They are leigon.


Say who? The parts of the government that has been caught in lies time and time again?





what... huh? said:


> Then by all means... Show me a news station on the scene which corroborates that. Are you kidding me? News orgs EXIST to expose such a thing, it is how they justify their necessity to the country. Show me the pictures of people fleeing covered in dust (not soot) before the building fell.


9\11 WTC Demolition - Investigate
[youtube]MnHLleVjezA[/youtube]
Come back when you are better educated so you don't look so stupid. Don't think for one mintue you can come to this thread blowing shit out your ass without being challeged ... and slapped down on many statement ... the neocons may be able to get away with the lies on corporate news ... but you won't be able to here ... that's for damn sure


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 6, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Wow ... you are really stupid aren't you ... you'd rather disregard science and facts to blow some stupid bullshit out your ass ... well you won't get away with it on this thread I can promise you that. Let's break it down for the folks at home


You certainly are an easily frustrated little box person aren'tcha? I am debating the science, and your "facts". You are all red faced and spitting on your keyboard. Not necessary. I am new here, and don't want to start flaming yet... because I am an awful person and would like to stick around a while to give some understanding of how I work. Most of what you parrot is completely contrived. You state presumptions about circumstances you do not understand, and apply simple logic to the solution. Here... I will show you...



GrowRebel said:


> Bullshit ... if any plane ... and I mean any plane deviates from it course jets are scramble in minutes ... never in the history before or after 911 have jet not been scramble when a plane leaves it's fight path. And this time 4 planes in secure air space?


 
Here you are just incorrect. Unless you are in "restricted" air space, such as over the whitehouse. There is no such thing as "secure" air space, and none of the planes were in restricted airspace. The procedure, for the record, when a plane goes off course, we usually don't know about it, because radar is not tracking planes most of the time (being ground based 50s technology). It is called "uncontrolled space".

Typically if a jet goes off course and does not squalk within 5 minutes they pick up the "red phone". Already you are 20 minutes into just getting them into the air, much less approaching their target.

At 8:40 NORAD gets a call from the FAA about flight 11.

At 8:43 they get one about 175

At 8:45 11 slams tower 1.

At 8:46 we get birds in the air from Falmouth MA (350 mi)

At 9:03 175 hits tower 2.

At 9:22 NORAD gets the call on flight 77.



It generally takes about 15 minutes to scramble a jet from order to throttle.

It was unexpected, and our state of readiness was not as good as it could have been... but even if it was... it would have made no difference.




GrowRebel said:


> Please. What do you take us for? It's obvious by the other posters they don't buy your bullshit either.
> Folks those jet were told to stand down ... and it wasn't by some so called terrorist in a cave ...




Seriously... how do you keep the foil from chaffing? Seems like the sound alone of it on my head would drive me nuts.

Who is it exactly that you claim to represent? Who exactly do you think I do?




GrowRebel said:


> *The 9/11 USAF Stand Down*
> The map below details the 9/11 planes' flightpaths and some of the military bases in those areas. The flights went through some of the most heavily militarized parts of the country.
> So much for your "out of the blue" bullshit ...


You do realize that every base doesn't have jets and pilots waiting at the ready to jump into "pew pew pew got'em" battle right? Most highly militarized parts of the country? They went from boston to New York (215 mi) Falmouth is closer to boston, Andrews is closer to NY.




GrowRebel said:


> You quote the testimony of Ashcroft in from of the phony 911 commission where people didn't have to testify under oath ... you expect us to believe what he said? Get real.


I expect you to disprove my evidence or STFU... frankly. 

"Nuh uh" is not a acceptable defense.





GrowRebel said:


> The Dog That Did Not Bark





GrowRebel said:


> Hijacked aircraft were wandering across the eastern half of the country. In theory no-one could have known how many planes had been hijacked. Two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, Bush was at a publicized photo opportunity at Booker Elementary School, and there is an airport only four miles from this School.
> Details were sketchy ... yeah ... right.




What is this meant to demonstrate exactly? 


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11secretservice.html?q=9-11secretservice.html


GrowRebel said:


> No he didn't misspeak ... he gave away the plan.


lol.



GrowRebel said:


> If he had the FBI close the files ... plenty ...


So the conspiracy widens... awesome.



GrowRebel said:


> So far I have only been able to find the question ... when I have the time I'll investigate further ...if nothing can be found this question will have to be retracted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You certainly are an easily frustrated little box person aren'tcha?


I'm not frustrated ... in fact I'm having a good time making people like you look stupid. It's my favorite past time. Stick around.



what... huh? said:


> I am debating the science, and your "facts". You are all red faced and spitting on your keyboard. Not necessary. I am new here, and don't want to start flaming yet... because I am an awful person and would like to stick around a while to give some understanding of how I work.


No ... you are not debating the science ... you are just making up shit ... if you were debating the science as you claim you would have address the links I provided in my last post stating the evidence. Instead you try to side step the issue by making up some shit about me. But that don't fly and until you address the science link you will continue to look like the fool you are.



what... huh? said:


> Most of what you parrot is completely contrived. You state presumptions about circumstances you do not understand, and apply simple logic to the solution. Here... I will show you...


How the hell would you know if it was contrived ... you don't bother to read the evidence. Tell us exactly in the physic link what I "parrot is completely contrived" ... give an examples in the links provided with presumptions about circumstances I do not understand ... instead of just blowing it out your ass.



what... huh? said:


> Here you are just incorrect. Unless you are in "restricted" air space, such as over the whitehouse. There is no such thing as "secure" air space, and none of the planes were in restricted airspace. The procedure, for the record, when a plane goes off course, we usually don't know about it, because radar is not tracking planes most of the time (being ground based 50s technology). It is called "uncontrolled space".


Oh really ... and since when is the pentagon and the financial center of the world not restricted air space? Blowing it out your ass again.



what... huh? said:


> Typically if a jet goes off course and does not squalk within 5 minutes they pick up the "red phone". Already you are 20 minutes into just getting them into the air, much less approaching their target.
> 
> At 8:40 NORAD gets a call from the FAA about flight 11.
> 
> ...


Once again you didn't read the link I posted on NORAD ... no surprise there. It only make you look stupid again so you might as well continue to ignore the link.



what... huh? said:


> It generally takes about 15 minutes to scramble a jet from order to throttle.


Yep and would have had the time to stop them ... if they had been called in a timely manner ... but they were not ... why?




what... huh? said:


> Seriously... how do you keep the foil from chaffing? Seems like the sound alone of it on my head would drive me nuts.


Yes I would imagine the sound of TRUTH ringing in your head would drive someone that can't face the facts ... nuts ... yeah ... I can agree with you on this point.



what... huh? said:


> Who is it exactly that you claim to represent? Who exactly do you think I do?


I represent me, myself and I ... and I really don't care "who exactly do you think I do?"




what... huh? said:


> You do realize that every base doesn't have jets and pilots waiting at the ready to jump into "pew pew pew got'em" battle right? Most highly militarized parts of the country? They went from boston to New York (215 mi) Falmouth is closer to boston, Andrews is closer to NY.


Blowing it out your ass again ... they didn't take the flight path you claim ... and if you bother the check the links I provided you would have seen their flight path and the military bases ... with jets ... that they passed. So once again you make yourself look totally stupid.



what... huh? said:


> I expect you to disprove my evidence or STFU... frankly.
> 
> "Nuh uh" is not a acceptable defense.


Already did with the links I provided that you didn't bother to look at.



what... huh? said:


> So... it is your contention that our intelligence is too stupid to kill the people who are supposed to have died in this phony attack?


I don't know what you are talking about here ... too stupid to kill the people?



what... huh? said:


> Seriously? That makes sense to you? Kill 3000+ citizens and ruin our economy... but let the scapegoats run free in morocco or wherever... You really are awesome.


Nothing you write makes sense ... PNAC has no problem killing americans or anyone else ... and the "scapegoats" as you call them are running around in the US. I know I am ... but what are you?




what... huh? said:


> Ok... but this is the last time I do your research for you. Now quit regurgitating the lies you KNOW are false. It is intellectually dishonest. THIS is what a flight manifest looks like.


Funny ... I can't find your link to this "flight manifest" ... and we don't want to know what it looks like ... we what to know if it's the list the hijackers were suppose to be on. So who is being intellectually dishonest?



what... huh? said:


> What is this meant to demonstrate exactly?


That high members in SS knew that bush wasn't in danger ... and they knew because it was a false flag attack.



what... huh? said:


> lol.


hee hee hee ... you are pretty funny. That's why I like you.



what... huh? said:


> So the conspiracy widens... awesome.


Obviously way too much for you to handle.




what... huh? said:


> So... these buildings fall slower? Sweet. Got a link to a video of one?


No ... the don't fall at all! ... but you can't seem to comprehend that simple concept. Plenty of video links ... an excellent one on the previous page with Richard Gage comparing the WTC and a building being demolished in a side by side video ... and lots more all throughout this thread ... knock yourself out ... but somehow ... I doubt you will ... why look at videos that make you look 



what... huh? said:


> oh... thats right... THEY ARE THE ONLY TWO IN HISTORY.


Wrong again ... they are the only THREE in history ... So you demostrat that you really don't know what you are talking about ... the 15 sec drop into it's foot print ... something you still can't seem to explain ... oh I'm sorry you said they were delicate. ha ha ha ... bwaa ha ha ...




what... huh? said:


> I am here to challenge the shit blowing... not the other way around.


The challenge you have offer is by insulting the intelligence of me, the other posters and the folks in our viewing audience with your piss poor responses. As I have clearly shown in the last post is you do nothing but blow it out your ass.



what... huh? said:


> Keep skipping the things you cant answer and move on to new ones...


I've address every single bull shit point you have made ... 



what... huh? said:


> I am still waiting for a rational logistical solution. I notice you skipped that.


I have posted the logical solution ... a public non partisan investigation with subpoena power and testimony under oath ... what part of that don't you understand?



what... huh? said:


> You weren't watching the news live that day I guess.


Oh you mean the corporate news that lied about this event from the start? Nope.



what... huh? said:


> Great... glad we are all on the same page now.


Are we? Not according to your last post on this point.



what... huh? said:


> For I believe the 3rd time now... the steel does not have to melt, to weaken/bend. When you say steel melts at 2700, you are unaware that you are referring to the melting point of steel... the point when it becomes liquid.


Steel has to do a lot more than "weaken/bend" before it comes crashing down in 15 sec. in it's own foot print ... I've posted pictures in this thread of steel from the building that was cut by thermite. 



what... huh? said:


> Burned ignited by Jet A after suffering the impact of tons?


In skyscapers design to handle such an event according to Richard Gage as well as other architects and engineers.



what... huh? said:


> What law would that be? Just curious.


What you have a reading comprehension problem? Go back and read again what I wrote.



what... huh? said:


> So you explain that bridge how? I mean... cmon... I gave you a well documented case. How much twisted melty steel do I have to find before you accept that you have no understanding whatsoever of physics, metalergy, or thermodynamics.


What am I suppose to do with a picture that give no detail of the circumstance of what happen? This is your evidence ... a picture with no info ... Get real. You continue to blow it out ... you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about do you.



what... huh? said:


> Ps... You can be civil. Just because I dont agree with you, and frankly think you are a loon, doesn't mean you have to be nasty.


I am being civil ... you think I'm a loon ... I think your stupid so what? 



what... huh? said:


> Like I said. I will try nice as long as it works. Then I am going to hurt your feelings and you will be sad... so try being civil.


Not even on your best day could you hurt my feelings ... I can take the heat ... can you? Go do your homework so you won't look so stupid the next time.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

The line by line thing is just too time consuming, so we are starting over.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

^science, from scientists... not tin foil hat wearers who using pseudoscience that they do not understand themselves.

I have addressed each of your concerns the best I could given the time I have. I have corrected you on several counts. You do not acknowledge those corrections. You do not understand the terms you are using, and so I explain them... and still you ramble on.

Hit me with your best shot. Question by question we can go over this. You copy and paste miles of crap hoping to overwhelm your opponent. See... you aren't doing any research. You aren't doing any thinking really... you are just regurgitating the same shit I have been discrediting for the last 7 years. 

I know all of your arguments before you wage them, because you do not wage arguments. You paste. I got it. All of it. I do not mean to shock you, but you have not pasted anything new.

So as I said. Lets go one at a time. I will answer ONE of yours, and you ONE of mine... then we move on to the next eh?

So, mine is still the first and only thing I have asked, which you continue to avoid.

Can you make up a feasible story explaining the preparation for demo that is logistically sound, without any single human being seeing. 

Lastly, you can continue to call me stupid, it doesn't bother me, but it makes you look sort of desperate. I mean if you need stupid people to explain to you what a flight plan is, or what restricted airspace is... it doesn't bode well for you.

also... Reagan International Airport is less than a mile from the pentagon. It is not restricted airspace save the area NE of the pentagon, which was not violated 







Not that it really matters... because if there WAS RA, they would have been over it for just seconds.

Airspace over the financial sector is NOT restricted airspace. Planes fly over all day. You just don't know what you are talking about.

No jet had ever intercepted an airliner in less than 45 minutes. Ever.

I said no 2 buildings, because there *are *comparable buildings to 7. So you think 7 moved too fast for gravity? or are all those videos of 1&2? 
That's what I thought.

My wife was a US Air pilot, and on that day took Mohammed Attah and 3 others to Boston from Bangor ME as memory serves... just as she had done 3 times before. I was on the phone with her when the FBI took her for questioning after she and all pilots were grounded. You probably will do better to avoid the aviation aspect of this, because I will continue to make you look stupid. Stick to demo. Don't give me any shit about my friends not being dead. It is just annoying.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

Just out of curiosity... roughly how many people were in on this conspiracy?

By my count, so far, we have everyone in the FAA. The Bush Whitehouse. The CIA. The FBI. 

What I wan't to know is how many of the incidentals, like you would have people in the airline industry, friends, family... How many pilots and first officers were in on it? How many folks in the military? How many AF pilots, sworn to defend the constitution were in on it? How many people in air traffic control? First responders? Demolitions experts? Scientists? How many people, roughly, do you suppose it takes to pull of a stunt like this... which will kill untold thousands... and destroy the financial markets... so that we can go bomb mud huts? 

Rough guess.


Also... how many living unicorns are there in your world?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Also... how many living unicorns are there in your world?


7... the answer is 7. 

but seriously, we don't know how many people were in on it. i would like the answer to that question as well. all that i know is things just didn't add up that day.

gulf of tonkin was made up to start vietnam that killed 58,000 people. why not do it again?

since 9/11 the government has gotten huge and the powerful people love it.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 7, 2009)

I just wish there was more use of this.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> No ... you are not debating the science ... you are just making up shit ... if you were debating the science as you claim you would have address the links I provided in my last post stating the evidence.


This one is annoying. To date, in direct contradiction to your "science and facts" (which are not at all science, nor facts... but instead people positing what they believe possible based on their understanding) I have offered the following. 





GrowRebel said:


> Bwaa ha ha ... steel structures melt everyday? Bullshit! Steel structures are sprayed with fireproofing material! Wrong again ... I have video posted in this thread ... around page 19 or so ... of firemen stating that they heard explosions right before the building collapes ...


I showed you this






and can provide all the information you need. The notion that "a fire wont melt steel" is a fundamental flaw in understanding that is at the core of at least 3 of your links. You are incorrect, and you have no argument other than "huh uh" or "bullshit" or "you are so stupid". 

You said:


GrowRebel said:


> What complete and total bullshit ... the average house fire is between 800 and 1200 degrees and it takes 1600 degrees to vaporize bone ...


I showed you a book on forensic pathology which states "Image 10.23 depicts partially blackened bone fragments from a *house fire...* it is not unusual for bones of the torso to be completely _incinerated_... "

It even had pictures for conspiracists who don't read good.

You said :


GrowRebel said:


> _Oh the list are readily available ... yet you didn't "blindly" copy and paste something readily available to back your bullshit ... I wonder why? Put up or stfu on this one
> And what about this?
> *At Least 7 of the 9/11
> Hijackers are Still Alive*_


and I posted the flight manifests for all flights. Disproving much of the conjecture in that link. I knew a guy named Juan Garcia... he was from Mexico. Do you think Mexico could find a guy that looks like him with the same name? Cause I heard my friend was dead... and would like to find him alive.
I guess your site didn't bother to keep up with the story that IT sites as "fact". I can do that with all of them... but here is the first one. I don't want to get mired in that. It is boring. IF however you choose that specific one, I will happily disprove them all. The FBI has never posted that image as Waleed M al-Shehri. The media is responsible for that particular misrepresentation. Your link is promoting a direct lie. I am fond of demonstrating a lie to discredit an entire article... but again... I am happy to go one by one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

You say:


GrowRebel said:


> Shoes ... engine ... purses ... source?


I posted:






Explaining that I remember seeing it unfold live. You explanation is that "the corporate media set it up". There were crowds of people around this thing. This was mid morning in the busiest city on the planet. This didn't happen on a closed street... wtf dude? So you think a news van came and dropped it off out the back of the van, destroyed the stuff it was supposed thit in its path, and busted up the concrete real quick before anyone saw. We can't play this game if you are unable to think rationally. 

You say:


GrowRebel said:


> Oh really ... and since when is the pentagon and the financial center of the world not restricted air space? Blowing it out your ass again.


and I demonstrate...








Bam. Fact. Evidence. It is all I have done. All you provide is contrived misunderstandings. You post erronious information, such as the height of the aircraft, as if it were fact. You misuse the terms you are claiming to understand better than I, and you just rail past any evidence demonstrating you are wrong. Like I said... lets go one by one, because my controlled demolition of your "science and facts" is getting lost in a blur of paste.

Lastly, If this is what you believe civil discourse is, it explains a lot about your family and why you are so angry at authority figures. Your inability to effect positive change in your own life must have a target. After all, it can't be your fault. It is the fault of authority, and you will demonize them for your failures in life. The man keeping you down. You feel impotent and are easily frustrated when your web of excuses for apathetic non-involvment in your future is threatened. That isn't meant to hurt your feelings... it is just an observation and opinion. Now... address a point. Let us hash it, and move on.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> 7... the answer is 7.
> 
> but seriously, we don't know how many people were in on it. i would like the answer to that question as well. all that i know is things just didn't add up that day.
> 
> ...


And I am not a "yay government woohoo" guy. The gulf of Tonkin, Guatemala, Louse, Panama... you got a bunch of things to hit on, where you will get nothing from me but vitriol. We have done some dark stuff all over the world. This, however, is not one of them.

It is an unfair advantage I have over you. I know my wife wasn't in on it. She flew a small jet. She greeted everyone on the plane, every time. In fact, at that time, they often left the cockpit door open during flight. People seemed to like to see what was going on.

From this, I have a level of understanding that you can't. It is, unfortunately, not possible to posit my anecdotal experience as evidence... but so you understand where I am coming from. This is a conspiracy that requires thousands, if not tens of thousands to be complicit in a horror most are sworn to prevent, without a single dissenter. Not a single whistle blown amongst a sea of government and civilian workers at different levels. Again, setting demo in two of the largest buildings in the world without detection... impossible.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> 7... the answer is 7.
> 
> but seriously, we don't know how many people were in on it. i would like the answer to that question as well. all that i know is things just didn't add up that day.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with the last statement. Absolutely people are using the situation to fleece power, and I find it very disturbing. We just disagree about the cause of the situation.

Just wanted to say my comments are directed really at grow rebel. You and I are of different opinion, but you are polite and not clinging to information shown to be erroneous. You will never see me say "trust the government". Your questions all seem logical... as do your assumptions. I believe they are wrong... as do you believe my logical questions and assumptions may be. I don't expect grow and I to be able to continue soon. He is irrational and histrionic. He will not confront facts well.


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

What..HUH - There was an article I posted awhile ago that explained the psycology of conspiracy theories and those that chose to believe them despite the mountain of evidence contrary. Your statements are very logicl and easy to fllow. Anyone with an ounce of common sence and rationa thinking understands the truth. The people that are wrapped p in the conspiracy will always find some excuseor ossibility no matter how remote because they are emotionally invested into the belief that they are one of the special people that see it. Reference CrackerJacks posts, they are exactly the responses the article talks about. Same with growrebel. They are not going to give up their belief that they see something that few others see and that makes them special. 


Great posts BTW. I don't always agree with you but you are spot on here.. +rep for the patience.


Edit: And fuck my broken ass keyboard, im not fixing the typos! lolol


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> The line by line thing is just too time consuming, so we are starting over.
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> 
> ^science, from scientists... not tin foil hat wearers who using pseudoscience that they do not understand themselves.


Popular mechanics has already been debunked in this and others threads ... but for the record ... 
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Oh and folks ... I don't know if I posted this or not so I will ... this is a great MP3 ... * Charles Goyette's Popular Mechanics 9/11 Interview causes cancellation of later interviews. * 
Listen to this MP3 file of Popular Mechanics on the Charles Goyette show in Phoenix. Charles has him backpedaling big time. Pass this MP3 file to any one who is leaning on Popular Mechanics to support their continued belief in the official story: 
This is a great interview folks ... he really creams this PM guy ... they(PM) are very defensive about the article now ... check out the MP3 of the caller ... it's great! 

So much for PM ... scientists? and prey tell us what Richard Gage is? And what part of his theory is "pseudoscience" you like to call names and give labels but that's it ... you never explain specifically what parts of Gage's presentation or any other evidence posted is "pseudoscience" and you know why? Because you can't. As usual you continue to blow shit out your ass. 



what... huh? said:


> I have addressed each of your concerns the best I could given the time I have. I have corrected you on several counts. You do not acknowledge those corrections. You do not understand the terms you are using, and so I explain them... and still you ramble on.


You haven't address anything other than saying it's incorrect or "tin hat" yet each and every time you fail to show why the evidence presented is incorrect put up or stfu. So far you come up with unexplained pictures with NO LINKS to the source ... so as far as I'm concerned you are still full of shit.



what... huh? said:


> Hit me with your best shot. Question by question we can go over this. You copy and paste miles of crap hoping to overwhelm your opponent. See... you aren't doing any research. You aren't doing any thinking really... you are just regurgitating the same shit I have been discrediting for the last 7 years.


You wouldn't know what I posted is crap or not you don't bother to check ... and that's your problem ... you can't read or comprehend the obvious. My goal is not to convince you of anything. My mission is to show every one just how stupid you are ... and I'm doing I find job when you deny the obvious. And you still haven't shown at any time how the material I've posted has been discredited. So here again you are blowing it out you ass like so many of your kind do.



what... huh? said:


> I know all of your arguments before you wage them, because you do not wage arguments. You paste. I got it. All of it. I do not mean to shock you, but you have not pasted anything new.


Folks you see how twisted the bushwhacked minded are. They love to project their short coming on to others. When you provide your source they call it copying and pasting ... when they copy and paste their bullshit without providing the source ... it's proof. Bwaa ha ha ha ... they are so funny. 



what... huh? said:


> So as I said. Lets go one at a time. I will answer ONE of yours, and you ONE of mine... then we move on to the next eh?


I'm still waiting for you to show the material I've posted is bullshit other than saying it is ... show us why ... and what source you have to back your statements ... if you continue with material that has already been debunked in this thread it will not be accepted. Go back and look at the posts regarding PM.



what... huh? said:


> So, mine is still the first and only thing I have asked, which you continue to avoid.
> 
> Can you make up a feasible story explaining the preparation for demo that is logistically sound, without any single human being seeing.


I've already told you ... if you are too stupid to comprehend my answer that's not my problem.



what... huh? said:


> Lastly, you can continue to call me stupid, it doesn't bother me, but it makes you look sort of desperate. I mean if you need stupid people to explain to you what a flight plan is, or what restricted airspace is... it doesn't bode well for you.


Well I can't call you ignorant because I have presenting you with facts, because you have the facts and disregard the obvious I can legally call you stupid. 

However I must confess I'm mistaken about the use of term restricted air space what I mean to say is those area are secure air space may be the correct term. But I know it's has it's defenses. 




what... huh? said:


> No jet had ever intercepted an airliner in less than 45 minutes. Ever.


Source?



what... huh? said:


> I said no 2 buildings, because there *are *comparable buildings to 7. So you think 7 moved too fast for gravity? or are all those videos of 1&2?
> That's what I thought.


There are videos of all three buildings ... yeah ... that's not what you thought! Ha ha ... and here again you are being stupid ... 15 sec for a building design to withstand what happen ... to believe anything else is just plain stupid. And I will call anyone stupid that believes these building fell in 15 sec after burning less than 2 hours in a fire not hot enough to do the damage that was done. Still waiting for you to address Gage's presentation ... but as usual you won't ... because you can't! ha ha!



what... huh? said:


> My wife was a US Air pilot,


Good for her ... why don't you have her put you in the bitch seat and take ya for a spin? Ha ha ... just joking ... 



what... huh? said:


> and on that day took Mohammed Attah and 3 others to Boston from Bangor ME as memory serves... just as she had done 3 times before. I was on the phone with her when the FBI took her for questioning after she and all pilots were grounded. You probably will do better to avoid the aviation aspect of this, because I will continue to make you look stupid. Stick to demo. Don't give me any shit about my friends not being dead. It is just annoying.


You might as well save this shit because there is no way on earth you can prove it. You have yet to make me look nearly as stupid as I have made you. Still waiting on your response to Gage. Until you do so you will remain stupid in this thread.


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> You might as well save this shit because there is no way on earth you can prove it.






> You have yet to make me look nearly as stupid as I have made you.


Really I beg to differ. He offered sites, and some real questions that you never answered fully. I would still like to hear how they rigged the buildings with enough explosive to bring them down with no one noticing. Have you ever watched a program on a demo being done? Its crazy the amount to prep work. 

Another thing no one has mentioned is friction heat. The heat caused by the building impacting the building even if there was no jet fuel would be enourmous. Kinda like how a metior crater has glass in it frm the heat (friction) generated by the rapid decelleration. That combined with the instant heat of the jet fuel and the HUGE amounts of oxygen (basically the building is a blowtorch at this point) being fed in the windows and vented up floors (heating the floors above). 

You now have a giant blowtorch. Huge structural damage, and gravity. 



As for the thrid building thing, I was watching tv that day, all day. Debris had been dropping on it ever since the collision. It was no mystery why it collapsed that day from memory. There was even a camera trained on it, and I think it was burning before it collapsed, but I could be wrong.


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

omfg double poster..


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2009)

Anyone got any pics of a steel structure catching fire and falling down besides the Trade center buildings?





Interstate Bank Building, nope didn't fall down, steel structures don't fall.






Beijing CCTV building, Man that thing burned all the way, every floor completely gutted, still didn't fall.






Madrid Building in Spain, another 100% burnt to a crisp building, they are deciding how much money and effort it is going to take to get it dismantled, cuz you guessed it IT DID NOT FALL OVER!







Yep this one looks like it should fall over any minute now...Thats exactly what happened, here is a shot of WTC building #7 and the massive fires that caused to to melt and fall into itself! Yep thats totally believable!! BAAA BAAA BAAAA

If it quacks like a demolition and walks like a demolition then its a .......


Just my 2c. I'm not trying to start a war here, theres just no amount of evidence that the sheep can muster that will ever change my mind that those buildings took some minor hits and just fell down. I Don't care how many government experts say its so, or how many fox/nbc/abc specials they do where everyone they interview says " Yeah they fell over cuz the fires were hot".


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

2 things trade center had that those did not have.

1. A HUGE plane smashing into it high off the ground. (they sway this caused in the building probablly severely weakened most of the supports, not to mention the plane slicing thru the building like a knife thru hot butter..
2. A huge amount of highly combustable fuel, with a huge amount of wind and more importantly oyxgen.

Small difference i know... lol


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2009)

Well that just goes to show that you really don't know what your talking about. WTC building # 7 had no plane hit it, and no combustible fuel with huge amount of wind yadayadayada, but yet it fell into its own footprint leaving buildings right next to it relatively untouched and the ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE FACT that it fell at free fall speed, which is IMPOSSIBLE unless all of its steel supports were somehow cut. You seem to think these buildings are made of brick and masonry, they aren't that's only a facade, they are GIANT steel girders and a steel framework that is over engineered to the extent that the building can sway 36 inches from its center and suffer no ill harm. There is just no way some light structural damage and a couple girl scout campfires took that building down. Believe what you want, you will never convince those of us that see the truth.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Popular mechanics has already been debunked in this and others threads ... but for the record ...
> Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
> Oh and folks ... I don't know if I posted this or not so I will ... this is a great MP3 ... * Charles Goyette's Popular Mechanics 9/11 Interview causes cancellation of later interviews. *
> Listen to this MP3 file of Popular Mechanics on the Charles Goyette show in Phoenix. Charles has him backpedaling big time. Pass this MP3 file to any one who is leaning on Popular Mechanics to support their continued belief in the official story:








GrowRebel said:


> This is a great interview folks ... he really creams this PM guy ... they(PM) are very defensive about the article now ... check out the MP3 of the caller ... it's great!
> 
> So much for PM ... scientists? and prey tell us what Richard Gage is? And what part of his theory is "pseudoscience" you like to call names and give labels but that's it ... you never explain specifically what parts of Gage's presentation or any other evidence posted is "pseudoscience" and you know why? Because you can't. As usual you continue to blow shit out your ass.


I note you don't actually refute any evidence I give... you simply attribute it to "not like me". I have challenged you to give me your best piece of evidence, and work backwards as we go down the road of logic and science together. It seems like a simple ask.




GrowRebel said:


> You haven't address anything other than saying it's incorrect or "tin hat" yet each and every time you fail to show why the evidence presented is incorrect put up or stfu. So far you come up with unexplained pictures with NO LINKS to the source ... so as far as I'm concerned you are still full of shit.


I am sorry, I guess I assume that if I show you a melted steel framed structure, I presume you have the tools necessary to comprehend that a bridge collapsing is NOT a product of government propaganda. Please highlight ANY of the evidence I have shown you, and I will gladly give you whatever information you require, without psycho nutjobs making up reasons why it "might" have happened.

Here is the fundamental problem with us arguing. I show you flight maps, readily available to all pilots, before and after 9/11... and because I disagree with you... you simply dismiss them as "lies" because they are contrary to your prior concept. This is troublesome for me, in my position. What WILL you accept as real, or proof, beyond what you currently accept? That is a tough order to fill. You are incapable of accepting that ANYBODY who believes as you do is wrong, or that ANYTHING in direct contrast to your belief system is genuine. 

It is like trying to explain to a devout catholic who has never read the bible, the contradictions therein. You FAITH conspiracy. It is very hard for us on the rational side of reality.



GrowRebel said:


> You wouldn't know what I posted is crap or not you don't bother to check ... and that's your problem ... you can't read or comprehend the obvious. My goal is not to convince you of anything. My mission is to show every one just how stupid you are ... and I'm doing I find job when you deny the obvious. And you still haven't shown at any time how the material I've posted has been discredited. So here again you are blowing it out you ass like so many of your kind do.


You are guilty precisely of that which you accuse me. Here is the primary difference between us. You copy and paste mountains of erroneous information. You are unwilling to acknowledge those things which I clearly demonstrate as BS. You continue to derive from the sources I have shown to promote BS, as if it is unimportant. 

If I point you to a link, which explains an event, and something in that link were shown to be incorrect... I will not continue to point to things within that link... because it is evident that for whatever reason... the writer is more concerned with being RIGHT than CORRECT. I have to continue to accept sources which are KNOWINGLY lying... or irreparably ignorant to the facts. At that point, my source becomes an irreparable source.
Yours becomes a victim of conspiracy.



GrowRebel said:


> Folks you see how twisted the bushwhacked minded are. They love to project their short coming on to others. When you provide your source they call it copying and pasting ... when they copy and paste their bullshit without providing the source ... it's proof. Bwaa ha ha ha ... they are so funny.


First and foremost... each image (right click and choose "properties" will tell you the link source) was almost exclusively grabbed from pro 9/11 conspiracy sources. Call them bullshit all you like.

I am a different animal. I call a spade a spade. I am anti-Bush (I and II for the record). Nothing you presume about me is accurate.

Tell me about your father.




GrowRebel said:


> I'm still waiting for you to show the material I've posted is bullshit other than saying it is ... show us why ... and what source you have to back your statements ... if you continue with material that has already been debunked in this thread it will not be accepted. Go back and look at the posts regarding PM.


I have. You are a little bit loony. You have yet to address a SINGLE piece of my evidence. Pick one bitch. Put up or shut up... remember? Pick.



GrowRebel said:


> I've already told you ... if you are too stupid to comprehend my answer that's not my problem.


Looked... gone back and looked. Gone back again and looked. Please re-post as I seem to have lost the ability to comprehend.



GrowRebel said:


> Well I can't call you ignorant because I have presenting you with facts, because you have the facts and disregard the obvious I can legally call you stupid.



English. Evidently it escapes you that it is both a people AND a language... because that ain't either. Please restate and I will do my best to address it.
 



GrowRebel said:


> However I must confess I'm mistaken about the use of term restricted air space what I mean to say is those area are secure air space may be the correct term. But I know it's has it's defenses.


Again, you are incorrect. I adore the fact that you are willing, at least, to accept that you misused a term. The journey of 1000 miles begins with that first step. 

No... there is no "secure" airspace outside of "restricted" in the United States.



GrowRebel said:


> Source?


I cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof is on you to discredit it. I have simply made a statement. Show me, in the entire expance of their history, when a jet has intercepted an airliner in less than 45 minutes.



GrowRebel said:


> There are videos of all three buildings ... yeah ... that's not what you thought! Ha ha ... and here again you are being stupid ... 15 sec for a building design to withstand what happen ... to believe anything else is just plain stupid. And I will call anyone stupid that believes these building fell in 15 sec after burning less than 2 hours in a fire not hot enough to do the damage that was done. Still waiting for you to address Gage's presentation ... but as usual you won't ... because you can't! ha ha!


Happy to. As I said... I like to go one thing at a time. Is this to be your choice for the first? You have simply to proclaim it... then we can go in turns.



GrowRebel said:


> Good for her ... why don't you have her put you in the bitch seat and take ya for a spin? Ha ha ... just joking ...


I have flown right seat more than you have flown. That I can just about guarantee.



GrowRebel said:


> You might as well save this shit because there is no way on earth you can prove it. You have yet to make me look nearly as stupid as I have made you. Still waiting on your response to Gage. Until you do so you will remain stupid in this thread.


Funny how one demonstrates their intellect to you. So be it. I will take Gage's argument as your first... presuming you do not object. Then you will address a single argument of mine. As my math works, I have addressed over a dozen of yours. The 3 of mine you have been proven wrong. As math goes... I am winning so far... but then winning is easy when you do not have to re-invent.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 7, 2009)

olosto said:


> Really I beg to differ.


 knock yourself out ... the facts back what I've presented ... only the bushwhack can't see it ... no surprises there ... and I really don't care whether you do or not.



olosto said:


> He offered sites, and some real questions that you never answered fully. I would still like to hear how they rigged the buildings with enough explosive to bring them down with no one noticing. Have you ever watched a program on a demo being done? Its crazy the amount to prep work.


 He offered a site that has been debunked and the bbc has been known for trying to debunk the 911 movement with little success ... You bushwhacked seem to have a big problem with reading comprehension ... I've already answered about the rigging in the buildings



olosto said:


> Another thing no one has mentioned is friction heat.


 Friction heat! Bwaa ha ha ha friction heat ... bwaa ha ha ha ha ... that's a good one!



olosto said:


> The heat caused by the building impacting the building even if there was no jet fuel would be enourmous. Kinda like how a metior crater has glass in it frm the heat (friction) generated by the rapid decelleration. That combined with the instant heat of the jet fuel and the HUGE amounts of oxygen (basically the building is a blowtorch at this point) being fed in the windows and vented up floors (heating the floors above).


 Do you have any science or source that hasn't been debunked to back this bullshit? No? ... didn't think so ... still waiting for the counter on Gage's presentation ... I wonder why you bushwhack keep avoiding that ... oh that's right ... because you can't! Bwaa ha ha ha ... 
 


olosto said:


> You now have a giant blowtorch. Huge structural damage, and gravity.


 Bwaa ha ha ha ... yeah ... right! Bwaa ha ha ha! That make a lot of sense ... you're right ... I must be mental.... NOT 



olosto said:


> As for the thrid building thing, I was watching tv that day, all day. Debris had been dropping on it ever since the collision. It was no mystery why it collapsed that day from memory. There was even a camera trained on it, and I think it was burning before it collapsed, but I could be wrong.


 My God! ... you are so  to believe that shit. Let's give him a hand ladies and gentlemen! 




olosto said:


> The people that are wrapped p in the conspiracy will always find some excuseor ossibility no matter how remote because they are emotionally invested into the belief that they are one of the special people that see it. Reference CrackerJacks posts, they are exactly the responses the article talks about. Same with growrebel. They are not going to give up their belief that they see something that few others see and that makes them special.


Check it out folks ... once again the bushwhack tries to project their own short comings on to others ... plenty of polls have been posted showing that most people do not accept the so called "official story" only the few bushwhacked minded that can't see their ass for the hole in the wall believe otherwise. What is even more amusing is they believe they are a majority ... too funny. 
... and can the mental shit ... no one is buying it ... couldn't get this link to act right so you will have to copy and paste it in your browser if you want to check it out.

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?
US News and World Report 911 Hit Piece Backfires
U.S. News and World Report ran an article on May 26th entitled The Inner Worlds of Conspiracy Believers. The intention was to demonize the truth/freedom movement by implying that anyone who doesnt believe the official story of 911 or anyone who mistrusts the government all-together is mentally ill. *But the real story isnt the obvious moronic drivel concocted by this yellow-journalistic rag of disinformation, it is the collection of well-informed comments left on their site*. 147 so far, the *overwhelming majority* of which are critical of the official conspiracy theory and also of this collection of nonsense that tries to pass itself off as news.
So much for your mental talking points. 





NoDrama said:


> Anyone got any pics of a steel structure catching fire and falling down besides the Trade center buildings?
> 
> Yep this one looks like it should fall over any minute now...Thats exactly what happened, here is a shot of WTC building #7 and the massive fires that caused to to melt and fall into itself! Yep thats totally believable!! BAAA BAAA BAAAA
> 
> ...


I'm telling ya ... it's incredible that they believe those fires cause those buildings to fall in 15 sec onto themselves ... how  is that? And we are the one who are the mental cases with no life or redeeming value to contribute to society ...  Thank for posting ... good material ... bet they can't find a building ... let watch kids at home.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Well that just goes to show that you really don't know what your talking about. WTC building # 7 had no plane hit it, and no combustible fuel with huge amount of wind yadayadayada, but yet it fell into its own footprint leaving buildings right next to it relatively untouched


What it DID have that no other did was two of the LARGEST structures in history fall on it.







and here is the shot you won't see from 9/11 conspiracists... 







Here is the video log of your "tiny fires". Go ahead. Watch. Won't hurt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fpull.htm&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
ALLRIGHT GOD DAMNIT SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO POST EMBEDDED YOUTUBE VIDEOS!!!

Damn it all. "How does one building fall because of damage and one not?" How does one guy get shot and live and the other not? Law of chaos. Why are they pulling buildings if they could just have easily be explained by demo? 


but wait... here is my favorite... how do these buildings... on multiple floors not BLOW THEIR PLANTED ORDINANCES as suggested while engulfed in flame.


Please give me the TYPE of ordinance which does not burn, yet ignites. 

Anybody.

Seriously.





NoDrama said:


> and the ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE FACT that it fell at free fall speed, which is IMPOSSIBLE unless all of its steel supports were somehow cut. You seem to think these buildings are made of brick and masonry, they aren't that's only a facade, they are GIANT steel girders and a steel framework that is over engineered to the extent that the building can sway 36 inches from its center and suffer no ill harm. There is just no way some light structural damage and a couple girl scout campfires took that building down. Believe what you want, you will never convince those of us that see the truth.


I am not WANTING to believe one side or the other. I am not affiliated with the government in any way. I simply disagree given the same evidence. I am also not a retard. You are just gonna have to deal with that fact... and if you actually FAITH your belief... you are going to have to fight for it. As will I.


The last thing I will say to No Drama about this post is the following...

None of the buildings you show are in any way comparable to WTC 1&2. Nothing much else is.

How many buildings do I need to show you like 7 that fall?

Would 1 disprove your theory?

2?

How many of the same weight and class as 7 which did fall would you accept in order to be wrong?


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

btw...


Who the FCUK is Gage?


Give me links, not an e-social structure. I don't care who you text for whatever purposes... I wan't links... not screen names.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I note you don't actually refute any evidence I give... you simply attribute it to "not like me". I have challenged you to give me your best piece of evidence, and work backwards as we go down the road of logic and science together. It seems like a simple ask.


Oh yeah I did ... I refuted your PM bullshit ... I gave you the Gage's presentation which you refuse to address, but we all know it's because you can't ... you come back with the same blowing it out you ass ... but that's fine ... it's just supports what I say about you.






what... huh? said:


> I am sorry, I guess I assume that if I show you a melted steel framed structure, I presume you have the tools necessary to comprehend that a bridge collapsing is NOT a product of government propaganda.


You put up a picture of some bridge with twisted steel ... give no information on what happen to said bridge and expect us to excepted as evidence that fire can melt steel? .... not.




what... huh? said:


> Please highlight ANY of the evidence I have shown you, and I will gladly give you whatever information you require, without psycho nutjobs making up reasons why it "might" have happened.


Once you address the evidence I have posted then I will go over the bullshit PM report you posted.



what... huh? said:


> Here is the fundamental problem with us arguing. I show you flight maps, readily available to all pilots, before and after 9/11... and because I disagree with you... you simply dismiss them as "lies" because they are contrary to your prior concept.


When did I say the flight maps were a lie? I said the flight path were given in my link.



what... huh? said:


> This is troublesome for me, in my position. What WILL you accept as real, or proof, beyond what you currently accept? That is a tough order to fill. You are incapable of accepting that ANYBODY who believes as you do is wrong, or that ANYTHING in direct contrast to your belief system is genuine.


there is no proof you can show me other than in an open public independent non partisan hearing with people sworn under oath providing credible evidence that what happen that day happen the way they said. Until that day as far as I'm concern the evidence that 911 was an inside job is obvious ... and I have lots of "loon" "mental case" "under achievers company here and overseas, heads of state, academic institutions, and intelligent agents.  



what... huh? said:


> It is like trying to explain to a devout catholic who has never read the bible, the contradictions therein. You FAITH conspiracy. It is very hard for us on the rational side of reality.


No ... I FAITH FACTS and the OBVIOUS ... you rational side ... bwaa ha ha ha ... that's funny ... I like you.
 




what... huh? said:


> You are guilty precisely of that which you accuse me. Here is the primary difference between us. You copy and paste mountains of erroneous information.


You mean all that erroneous information you have yet to dispute or refuse ... that erroneous information ... you mean the information I provided that you can't specifically tell us where the erroneous information is... that stuff? Blowing it out your ass again ... but we all know why ... because you simply can't refute the facts.



what... huh? said:


> You are unwilling to acknowledge those things which I clearly demonstrate as BS. You continue to derive from the sources I have shown to promote BS, as if it is unimportant.


No ... unlike you ... I showed the folks at home why your bullshit is what I say ... I've provided and interview where they discussed specific information in the PM article and debunked it. You have don't nothing like this.



what... huh? said:


> If I point you to a link, which explains an event, and something in that link were shown to be incorrect... I will not continue to point to things within that link...


Well since you haven't shown me what link and what is incorrect ... because you can't ... I'm going to continue to rub the facts of the link in your face.



what... huh? said:


> because it is evident that for whatever reason... the writer is more concerned with being RIGHT than CORRECT.


We are still waiting for you to prove the writer is incorrect ... when you gonna do that? Oh that's right ... you're not ... because you can't! Bwaa ha ha ha




what... huh? said:


> I have to continue to accept sources which are KNOWINGLY lying... or irreparably ignorant to the facts. At that point, my source becomes an irreparable source.
> Yours becomes a victim of conspiracy.


I'm going to keep asking this folks at home ... watch them continue to ignore it ... why? Yep that's right kids! Because he can't! Show us the parts where they are "KNOWINGLY lying" ... we'd love to see it. And you are a victim of 





what... huh? said:


> First and foremost... each image (right click and choose "properties" will tell you the link source) was almost exclusively grabbed from pro 9/11 sources. Call them bullshit all you like.


No ... each image was grabbed by sources with the facts that you have yet to dispute other than SAYING it's a lie ... ok it's bullshit



what... huh? said:


> I am a different animal. I call a spade a spade. I am anti-Bush (I and II for the record). Nothing you presume about me is accurate.
> 
> Tell me about your father.


You got that right ... you are a different animal ... one that is blind. and I call a dummy a dummy ... I've made no presumptions ... only followed the logical conclusion ... now tell me about your mother... 






what... huh? said:


> I have. You are a little bit loony. You have yet to address a SINGLE piece of my evidence. Pick one bitch. Put up or shut up... remember? Pick.


I'm a loony ... with lots of company and you are a dummy ... in the minority ... you have yet to address Gage's presentation ... you can try and project all you like but I will not let you get away with all the side stepping ... Still waiting asswipe ... put up or stfu ... 





what... huh? said:


> Looked... gone back and looked. Gone back again and looked. Please re-post as I seem to have lost the ability to comprehend.


Tell us something we don't know.






what... huh? said:


> English. Evidently it escapes you that it is both a people AND a language... because that ain't either. Please restate and I will do my best to address it.


You poor fool you're projecting again ... can't challenge Gage's presentation so you try to trash me ... not going to work though ... the longer you delay the more  you look.
 




what... huh? said:


> Again, you are incorrect. I adore the fact that you are willing, at least, to accept that you misused a term. The journey of 1000 miles begins with that first step.


Yeah ... we heard the I'm incorrect before ... try backing it with some facts, but we all know why you can't ... and I'm the first to admitted I'm wrong ... something you bushwhacked are incabable of. 



what... huh? said:


> No... there is no "secure" airspace outside of "restricted" in the United States.


If a plane goes off it's flight path especially around the pentagon some shit is going down... it happen before and after 911. There are defense in place ...





what... huh? said:


> I cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof is on you to discredit it. I have simply made a statement. Show me, in the entire expance of their history, when a jet has intercepted an airliner in less than 45 minutes.


No ... I asked you to show us your source that no jet has intercepted an airliner in less than 45 min. Don't try to wiggle out of your own post.





what... huh? said:


> Happy to. As I said... I like to go one thing at a time. Is this to be your choice for the first? You have simply to proclaim it... then we can go in turns.


Still waiting for you to dispute Gage's report ... oh yeah .. that's right ... you can't.





what... huh? said:


> I have flown right seat more than you have flown. That I can just about guarantee.


Good for you! Here a cookie for you ... isn't that nice? 





what... huh? said:


> Funny how one demonstrates their intellect to you. So be it. I will take Gage's argument as your first... presuming you do not object. Then you will address a single argument of mine. As my math works, I have addressed over a dozen of yours.


Name the dozen.



what... huh? said:


> The 3 of mine you have been proven wrong. As math goes... I am winning so far... but then winning is easy when you do not have to re-invent.


Oh is that so ... and where prey tell was I proven wrong? The only place you are winning is in your bushwhacked mind ... but that's nothing unusal. I find it very amusing that you view youself in such a manner especially since in totally contridicts reality ... 

Give my best you your pilot wife.

What did I tell you folks at home ... can't dispute the facts so he make up shit and claims he did ... by stating it's "incorrect" or a "lie" ... wow ... those bushwhack can really debate can't they?
Stay tune ... for another episode of "Making the Bushwhacked Look Stupid


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> btw...
> 
> 
> Who the FCUK is Gage?
> ...


Gage is one of many scientists that make you look stupid that who he is ... and if you'd bother to look through the thread you would see the links to Mr. Gage ... but because you are a dummy and I love the opportuinty of showing our folks at home that you are I will once again provide the links... 

We will be waiting for you to dispute the facts of an engineer ... can't wait.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Oh yeah I did ... I refuted your PM bullshit ... I gave you the Gage's presentation which you refuse to address, but we all know it's because you can't ... you come back with the same blowing it out you ass ... but that's fine ... it's just supports what I say about you.


Again... I don't know who Gage is. Post a link and I will address it. I have tried to address everything you have posted on... but you seem incapable of keeping track of your own "beliefs" so I will say... in no uncertain terms... ONE AT A TIME. Start with your best and work backwards. Oh... and I need links... not names. Their names are no more important to me than yours. Facts.



GrowRebel said:


> You put up a picture of some bridge with twisted steel ... give no information on what happen to said bridge and expect us to excepted as evidence that fire can melt steel? .... not.


I previously stated that I can give you any information you like about that specific event. It was in California on a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze (I580). A tanker going too fast overturned and ignited gasoline underneath the overpass, causing the steel (not steal) beams and bolts which secured them to melt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Maze

This is precisely my point. You refuse to accept fact, science, or evidence contrary to your beliefs... which in case you didn't know, is pretty much how fundamentalism works.



GrowRebel said:


> Once you address the evidence I have posted then I will go over the bullshit PM report you posted.


I have addressed quite a large volume of evidence. You have yet to respond to ANY of it. Fuck your false piety. Address ONE issue, and I will too. You suck at multiplicity.




GrowRebel said:


> When did I say the flight maps were a lie? I said the flight path were given in my link.


When did I say you said the flight maps were a lie? I demonstrated "restricted airspace". You can make up whatever fantasies you like about "secure airspace" outside of Restricted Airspace. If it makes you feel safer that the government protects ALL national interests including chinatown... that's great. Link me.



GrowRebel said:


> there is no proof you can show me other than in an open public independent non partisan hearing with people sworn under oath providing credible evidence that what happen that day happen the way they said. Until that day as far as I'm concern the evidence that 911 was an inside job is obvious ... and I have lots of "loon" "mental case" "under achievers company here and overseas, heads of state, academic institutions, and intelligent agents.


LMAO. You don't know any intel agents. Complete phucking lie. You are a liar. Or they are liars and you are so sadly willing to believe that you now strike pity from me. Are these "online intel agent friends?" I will choose to believe you are a liar. The alternative is so pathetic that I feel bad for engaging you.



GrowRebel said:


> No ... I FAITH FACTS and the OBVIOUS ... you rational side ... bwaa ha ha ha ... that's funny ... I like you.



 
Again... not english. You know... you can pretend from here to tomorrow that I have not provided evidence... but there it is... on these pages. 

How much of your evidence have I addressed?

How much of mine have you?

God I love simple math. You cannot revise history as it happens friend.


Link me to Gage... patroned Saint of the delusional... and I will de-construct whatever you like.


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't believe I ever said WTC #7 was hit by a plane. Where did you get that? WTC 7 when down because of debris impacting it, i mean look at the fucking thing. And buildings unless knocked over come down in their own foot print. I know demo teams want to act like its some miracle they perform but a building wants to fall straight down. What forces are going to make it topple over the side? None.. If the supports weaken from the inside its gunna slam down sloor on floor like it did. It looks smooth but inside that thing was crushing itself like an aluminum can from the top down. There were no forces to push it over so it fell straight down.

Also I offered some real arguements complete with physics to explain. Here is a link (its the first on when you put in glass made by metoerite impact) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061221-egypt-glass.html . I guess science just made that one up. Are you shitting me that you do not know about frictional heat caused by impact? Fuck you are back woods...


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

wtf do you not understand about 1 at a time?


For the record... the first link you posted to Gage is two hours. It will take me some time. Thus far (7 min in) it has yet to proclaim a fact except that the buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds... which is incorrect according to your own posts.

I interrupt my watching only to ask the question... how many lies before you decide he is not truthful? Or do you have a SINGLE piece of evidence (which I have asked for again and again) that you would like to discuss?

I will continue to watch and take notes... but it begs the question that if this is for "truth"... where does one lie find its place? The great thing about the truth, is that you don't have to work around it. It simply is.

So... what is the lies to "fact" ratio which demonstrates to YOU a willingness to mislead? Why are all of the 9 books from this guy about politics and NOT engineering if you post him as a "scientific expert" on the subject? Just curious.

** edit

If you claim this guy to be the defacto 9/11 guru... can I use HIS claims to dispute all of the other conspiracists who promote "facts" contrary to his? Or on the outset, are you willing to accept that this guy is wrong about things?

Either way... I'm good.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2009)

olosto said:


> I don't believe I ever said WTC #7 was hit by a plane. Where did you get that? WTC 7 when down because of debris impacting it, i mean look at the fucking thing. And buildings unless knocked over come down in their own foot print. I know demo teams want to act like its some miracle they perform but a building wants to fall straight down. What forces are going to make it topple over the side? None.. If the supports weaken from the inside its gunna slam down sloor on floor like it did. It looks smooth but inside that thing was crushing itself like an aluminum can from the top down. There were no forces to push it over so it fell straight down.
> 
> Also I offered some real arguements complete with physics to explain. Here is a link (its the first on when you put in glass made by metoerite impact) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061221-egypt-glass.html . I guess science just made that one up. Are you shitting me that you do not know about frictional heat caused by impact? Fuck you are back woods...


 Meteors did it, you truly must be wearing a triple layer of tin foil if you think meteors did it.

WTC7 came down from debris, yep it was designed to take full frontal MULTIPLE hits from AIRLINERS, yet a few little bricks got crushed and a gash in the facade and its all over for the building and the most amazing part is how the undamaged sections broke first, physics would tell you that it would fall in the direction of the most damage, but it didn't at all. You should try chopping a tree down sometime and let me know if it falls into its own footprint. 

let me show you what happens to buildings that fall, they tip over, not fall into themselves, the main support columns can support 10 times the mass they do support and they are in the middle of the building, its not designed like a tin can with just a steel shell, the main support is the interior of the building.







let me give you the "Official " Explanation of how WTC #7 fell, now mind you this is the "Official" Government stance and I am just going to cut and paste it for you so there won't be any confusion.


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. 


Yep the unlimited government resources just couldn't come up with a plausible scenario, so they didn't even try, they basically just said " We don't have any idea what could have caused that" But you Oh great Olosto have already figured it out, caused by falling office furniture and paperwork and the occasional body that jumped out of a tower. The NYFD just minutes before the building collapsed said it was very minor damage, I tend to believe the folks that were on site and not some fantasy event made up by the gubbermint.


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

The pic you are showing.. The building fell because there was an issue with the ground. The structure was sound, the ground gave way. There are your sideways forces. Take away the ground giving way and toppling a building does not happen (again without some outside force), simple physics. 


And you are a fucking moron if you somehow think i implied that metors had something to do with it. It just so happens that the easiest way to see how impact friction works is to look at a metoir (That was my site, how did you get metiors hitting a building from an example of impact friction??). Any high speed object hitting anotherr object creates an amount of impact friction. Do you dispute this?


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Meteors did it, you truly must be wearing a triple layer of tin foil if you think meteors did it.
> 
> WTC7 came down from debris, yep it was designed to take full frontal MULTIPLE hits from AIRLINERS, .


 
Meteors pfft.. your a fucking moron again..
About wtc7 was it designed to take the impact of wtc1 and 2 falling on and around it?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> What it DID have that no other did was two of the LARGEST structures in history fall on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is going to be extremely easy to reply to. first of all the towers did not fall on #7, your picture clearly refutes your own argument, I can clearly see #7 sitting there barely scratched, no fires nothing falling apart.

You have NO experience with explosives, this is clear from your own statement. ANYONE that has experience with HE(High Explosive) knows that most modern explosives can BURN all fucking day long and not explode. Modern explosives need 2 things to blow up, pressure and heat. I have personally taken a 1/4 pound stick of C4 and lit it on fire, it burns really well and is great for a quick fire in wet/damp conditions. You might be able to get it to blow if you were to hit it with great force while it burned, but its really really safe stuff.

Now show me even 1 building ( DO NOT SHOW me towers 1&2) that is a steel reinforced skyscraper that has fallen into its own footprint by means other than demolition/natural disaster. You can't because it has never happened and that is a well known fact jack! Fire has never brought a steel building down, well except on 9-11 where it happened 3 times all in the same area...a 1 in a quadrillion billion trillion chance of ever happening again in any universe anywhere, even in bizarro world them things don't come down.

I am not refuting that an airliner flying into a building wasn't a horrible act, nor that it caused a great deal of damage, but the building was engineered to take that kind of a hit and survive. Other skyscrapers have been hit by airplanes also, the empire state has been hit with a B-25 bomber and that plane was full of AV gas ( Aviation fuel) which is many many times more volatile than jet A ( Jet A is less refined than diesel fuel and does not readily burn well) as it has an octane rating of 115+. Guess what? You probably already guessed, didn't come down.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2009)

olosto said:


> Meteors pfft.. your a fucking moron again..
> About wtc7 was it designed to take the impact of wtc1 and 2 falling on and around it?


So what your telling me is that the building fell so fast that it created friction enough to melt glass? Meteors hit objects at 11 Kilometers /Second, that's the equivalent of 25,000 miles per hour. Free fall speed of a brick is about 120 MPH , so unless you can find a way to convince me that gravity worked differently that day your friction theory has been blown out of the water.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 7, 2009)

Binary? You referring to binary?


How the hell do you do a precision timed demo in front of the world with binary?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2009)

olosto said:


> Meteors pfft.. your a fucking moron again..
> About wtc7 was it designed to take the impact of wtc1 and 2 falling on and around it?


If you look at a map of battery park and the WTC grounds you will notice that WTC #7 is on the other side of the 2 towers, none of the other buildings hit by debris were felled, just this one. Must be that "law of Chaos" that is so convenient to use instead of just saying " I don't know because science can't explain it".


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Binary? You referring to binary?
> 
> 
> How the hell do you do a precision timed demo in front of the world with binary?



No Im talking about the VAST MAJORITY of explosives used for demolition. Put on your reading glasses, I specifically state what kind of explosives burn and do not explode. No one said anything about Binary. You never heard of C4 or something? Plastic explosive? you think C4 is binary? No wonder you got all your facts messed up.


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> So what your telling me is that the building fell so fast that it created friction enough to melt glass? Meteors hit objects at 11 Kilometers /Second, that's the equivalent of 25,000 miles per hour. Free fall speed of a brick is about 120 MPH , so unless you can find a way to convince me that gravity worked differently that day your friction theory has been blown out of the water.


* Do you even bother to read posts or do you just make shit up? I explained that the impact from the plane generated significant impact friction and gave examples of how metoerites make glass when they impact from the frictional heat caused by the impact*. I was making the point that the av gas fire plus this additiona heat should be more than enough heat to melt the beams not to mention the plane slicing thru like butter. I can't believe you don't even read peoples posts and just make shit up. No wonder why you believe this shit, you just hear what you want to.


----------



## olosto (Jun 7, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> If you look at a map of battery park and the WTC grounds you will notice that WTC #7 is on the other side of the 2 towers, none of the other buildings hit by debris were felled, just this one. Must be that "law of Chaos" that is so convenient to use instead of just saying " I don't know because science can't explain it".


look at those pictures.. Are you telling me that the collapsed buildings did not touch building 7 in any way and it came down while in perfect condition because of a controlled explosive event? NO WAY!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Again... I don't know who Gage is. Post a link and I will address it. I have tried to address everything you have posted on... but you seem incapable of keeping track of your own "beliefs" so I will say... in no uncertain terms... ONE AT A TIME. Start with your best and work backwards. Oh... and I need links... not names. Their names are no more important to me than yours. Facts.


Again I told you who he is ... and I posted a link ... how convenient for you not to find it ... even though the link is clear as day. Yeah you tried ... and each time you fail ... with your stupid side steps ... "where's the link" "the information is a lie" "the information is incorrect" "you haven't answered my questions" ... you go on and on with the same avoiding the questions. It's doesn't work and only make you look 





what... huh? said:


> I previously stated that I can give you any information you like about that specific event. It was in California on a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze (I580). A tanker going too fast overturned and ignited gasoline underneath the overpass, causing the steel (not steal) beams and bolts which secured them to melt.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Maze


I don't want your information I want the link to the story with the information as to what happen. What part of that don't you get? Sorry but I'm not going to take you at your word ... I want that link.



what... huh? said:


> This is precisely my point. You refuse to accept fact, science, or evidence contrary to your beliefs... which in case you didn't know, is pretty much how fundamentalism works.


No I refuse to accept a picture with no link no story as evidence or science. Everyone sees your side stepping game ... it doesn't fly here ... you only continue to make yourself look foolish.



what... huh? said:


> I have addressed quite a large volume of evidence. You have yet to respond to ANY of it. Fuck your false piety. Address ONE issue, and I will too. You suck at multiplicity.


You haven't address anything ... you only claim to have ... there is a difference ... I know the bushwhacked can't comprehend that ... but I'm not concerned with that ... I'm only care about showing the folks at home how ridiculous you people are nothing more.
I've address one issue ... you addressing Gage's video ... you refuse to do so ... why ... because you can't.
 


what... huh? said:


> When did I say you said the flight maps were a lie? I demonstrated "restricted airspace". You can make up whatever fantasies you like about "secure airspace" outside of Restricted Airspace. If it makes you feel safer that the government protects ALL national interests including chinatown... that's great. Link me.


When did you said I said the map were a lie ... why right here ...



what... huh? said:


> Here is the fundamental problem with us arguing. I show you flight maps, readily available to all pilots, before and after 9/11... and because I disagree with you... you simply dismiss them as "lies" because they are contrary to your prior concept.


Remember now? ... I know that if a plane goes off course NORAD is called and I know it not some fantasy maybe for you ... 



what... huh? said:


> LMAO. You don't know any intel agents. Complete phucking lie. You are a liar. Or they are liars and you are so sadly willing to believe that you now strike pity from me. Are these "online intel agent friends?" I will choose to believe you are a liar. The alternative is so pathetic that I feel bad for engaging you.


Once again caught blowing it out ... I don't lie ... I post facts ... with source links ... unlike you ...
http://911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.htmlhttp://911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F911lies.org%2Fformer_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html&ei=yJ8sSseqNITWMOK12OIJ&rct=j&q=%22former+CIA%22+%22911%22&usg=AFQjCNECYkqSASrx4lA0tegypXNdW47_Tw"]_Former CIA_ and top official speak openly about _911_[/url]
The caliber and status of those publicly acknowledging inconsistencies with the official version of the 911 commission report is staggering. After you read the names and consider their expertise, and / or position in society.
Yes it would be must easier for you to choose I'm a liar than accept that you are  again no surprises there.




what... huh? said:


> Again... not english. You know... you can pretend from here to tomorrow that I have not provided evidence... but there it is... on these pages.


and you can pretend from here until tomorrow that you've provided evidence that is credible ... you haven't because you can't. You are not fooling anyone with your side stepping ... it may work on faux and corporate news but that shit with not fly here. Deal with it.



what... huh? said:


> How much of your evidence have I addressed?


None ... and in my last post I asked you to list the 12 points you made proving me wrong ... you haven't ... I wonder why?



what... huh? said:


> How much of mine have you?


I've address every bull shit report you posted.



what... huh? said:


> God I love simple math. You cannot revise history as it happens friend.


Then why the hell don't you follow it? And you can't cover up the truth and facts with side step and bullshit answers. Not while I can post.




what... huh? said:


> Link me to Gage... patroned Saint of the delusional... and I will de-construct whatever you like.


Like I said ... I did in my last post ... but we are not the least bit surprise you didn't see it ... might as well not ... you will only embarrass yourself ... again.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> wtf do you not understand about 1 at a time?


WTF don't you understand about that's what I'm doing?



what... huh? said:


> For the record... the first link you posted to Gage is two hours. It will take me some time. Thus far (7 min in) it has yet to proclaim a fact except that the buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds... which is incorrect according to your own posts.


No it's not ... the first link to Gage is 7:30 ... the two hour link is for those that are interested in further information. 10 sec, 15 ... the fact remains the buildings are design to withstand what happen. They don't come crashing down in their own footprint in a few sec. after burn less than 2 hours.



what... huh? said:


> I interrupt my watching only to ask the question... how many lies before you decide he is not truthful? Or do you have a SINGLE piece of evidence (which I have asked for again and again) that you would like to discuss?


Again just what has he stated that was a lie? *Be specific*. You always blow it out about the lies ... yet you can never state what the lies are ... I wonder why? And yes there is evidence of thermite at the site ... Gage's discuss it in his 7 minute video.



what... huh? said:


> I will continue to watch and take notes... but it begs the question that if this is for "truth"... where does one lie find its place? The great thing about the truth, is that you don't have to work around it. It simply is.


Spare us the taking notes ... you know there is a shorter video ... you are just side stepping ... the fact is you are blowing it ... nothing more.



what... huh? said:


> So... what is the lies to "fact" ratio which demonstrates to YOU a willingness to mislead? Why are all of the 9 books from this guy about politics and NOT engineering if you post him as a "scientific expert" on the subject? Just curious.
> 
> ** edit


Side stepping again I see ... what does this have to do with the video? Nothing. Just can't dispute it so you have to think up some other shit ... like I said this isn't faux news ... you can't get away with the side step here ...
folks at home notice how many posts I have asking him about Gage ... and notice how he continues to avoid addressing the 7 min video that I linked? This is all he has ... watch ... he'll keep it up ... hoping that if he does it enough you will accepted it. The same concept his bushwhacked leader believe.
 


what... huh? said:


> If you claim this guy to be the defacto 9/11 guru... can I use HIS claims to dispute all of the other conspiracists who promote "facts" contrary to his? Or on the outset, are you willing to accept that this guy is wrong about things?
> 
> Either way... I'm good.


Yawn ... we are still waiting. He sure is taking a long time isn't he folks ... watch him take longer ... 
Well kids the work week has stated ... if I have time in the evenings to post I will. If not ... I see you next weekend.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 8, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> So what your telling me is that the building fell so fast that it created friction enough to melt glass? Meteors hit objects at 11 Kilometers /Second, that's the equivalent of 25,000 miles per hour. Free fall speed of a brick is about 120 MPH , so unless you can find a way to convince me that gravity worked differently that day your friction theory has been blown out of the water.


NoDrama ...you rock ... you run rings around these guys ... there will never comprehend it though ... but at least the folks at home can see just how whacked out they truly are. 

Did you notice they couldn't produce another building that fell like the towers? Told ya.

Feel free to comment at any time ... great links by the way ... thanks.


----------



## olosto (Jun 8, 2009)

I was talking to my wife about this thread and she made a great comment, "Argueing with stupid people is not going to make them any smarter." Im done here. You just make shit up and mis quote people, and the then tard gallery high fives each other, lol




Peace & Remember the world is going to end in 2012 anyway so buckle up your tin foil hat!






lol


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 8, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> No Im talking about the VAST MAJORITY of explosives used for demolition. Put on your reading glasses, I specifically state what kind of explosives burn and do not explode. No one said anything about Binary. You never heard of C4 or something? Plastic explosive? you think C4 is binary? No wonder you got all your facts messed up.



The problem with being a jackass about stuff... is that when you are wrong... it sucks extra special.

This is gonna sting a little.

C4 has an autoignition temperature of 200 deg c and is indeed flammable.

See... I do know a little bit about boom boom.

Now if you were just pleasant you wouldn't look like such a jackass now.

http://www.rmisonline.com/chemicaldatabase/ViewInfo1.aspx?SID=98


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 8, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I don't want your information I want the link to the story with the information as to what happen. What part of that don't you get? Sorry but I'm not going to take you at your word ... I want that link.


Um... Jackass... there is a link in the quote. Wikified for your protection.



GrowRebel said:


> No I refuse to accept a picture with no link no story as evidence or science. Everyone sees your side stepping game ... it doesn't fly here ... you only continue to make yourself look foolish.


Lol... the only "stories" you have linked, with very rare exception, are not recognized or accredited papers... they are jackasses like you, sitting in their basements blogging on how the gubbament is comin' for em for spreading THE TRUTH!!! lol.









GrowRebel said:


> When did you said I said the map were a lie ... why right here ...


So you acknowledge you were wrong, and will stop saying so in the future?




GrowRebel said:


> Remember now? ... I know that if a plane goes off course NORAD is called and I know it not some fantasy maybe for you ...


That is incorrect. They must be off course with no contact for 5 minutes. More importantly we have to know they are off course... and they rarely know. Then usually the pilot is alerted, and course is corrected. Even around the pentagon. They don't just call in the guns.





GrowRebel said:


> Once again caught blowing it out ... I don't lie ... I post facts ... with source links ... unlike you ...



You link me to liars... you promote lies... and you continue to call ME a liar... what have I lied about? I mean... I don't even see anything I have been incorrect about. Let me guess... I am in on it too. I'm one of them.[/quote]






GrowRebel said:


> and you can pretend from here until tomorrow that you've provided evidence that is credible ... you haven't because you can't. You are not fooling anyone with your side stepping ... it may work on faux and corporate news but that shit with not fly here. Deal with it.


Every piece of evidence I have demonstrated has been credible, and you haven't addressed any of it.





GrowRebel said:


> None ... and in my last post I asked you to list the 12 points you made proving me wrong ... you haven't ... I wonder why?


Because re-reading your posts is like drilling my own knees with a masonry bit on slow. You can't even speak the language... no wonder you get confused so easily. Read over the last 5 pages and count for yourself. It just wastes my time, telling you what I already told you.




GrowRebel said:


> I've address every bull shit report you posted.


Not a single one. Nothing. Nil. 




GrowRebel said:


> Then why the hell don't you follow it? And you can't cover up the truth and facts with side step and bullshit answers. Not while I can post.


You can barely post at that. I have addressed quite a bit... the problem is much of this is complicated. These problems require more discussion than you are willing to give them... you just keep linking me to youtube videos as if these wing nuts are in ANY way credible. STOP LINKING ME TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LYING... BLATANTLY... AND ACTING AS IF THEY ARE CREDIBLE. It isn't much wonder that you do not understand credibility.




GrowRebel said:


> Like I said ... I did in my last post ... but we are not the least bit surprise you didn't see it ... might as well not ... you will only embarrass yourself ... again.


Gotta say... don't feel the slightest bit embarrassed. Even if the planets were to realign and you were able to convince me I am wrong... I wouldn't be embarrassed. That is all very important to you... you cannot have a discussion without being an asshole... because you don't really care about being right... you want to win.

You won't. You will continue to come across as a wackjob with an attitude and problems with authority.

I really hope you are young.


On the subject of time intercepting with jets... you don't understand a very simple concept. I cannot prove a negative. I can say, for instance, that there is not a pink elephant in your room. I cannot PROVE it. The onus of proof is on you. I have exhausted every resource I have looking for any interception in history which breached 45 min, and there is no such record. The onus is on you to disprove MY statement... because you cannot prove a negative. Do you understand?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> The problem with being a jackass about stuff... is that when you are wrong... it sucks extra special.
> 
> This is gonna sting a little.
> 
> ...


God how I LOVE it when you make your own argument against yourself. You just said that c4 burns, autoignition is burning, not exploding. Thanks for making my point even stronger. Hell this is easy, I really just gotta let you guys argue against yourselves, you make statements that totally contradict your earlier posts. Oh and you know absolutely NOTHING about explosives. you probably can't even tell me how you make c4 explode. Hint: there is no fire involved.c'mon Im sure you can read some wikipedia or something and come back with yet another failed attempt to explain your theory. You also said that you could find me buildings that fell into themselves, but you haven't backed up anything you say with anything 
resembling facts.

Here is a definition for autoignition, just so you don't try to erroneously use it again sometime in a conversation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 8, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Hint: there is no fire involved.



There is fire involved. Heat and concussion. Either by electronic or conventional black powder. Shock, and heat, go boom. I would think a munitions expert such as yourself would know that...

You understand the difference between making a declarative statement and and interrogative one? I asked for someone to let me know something I was clearly unaware of. You make it out like I stated it wasn't possible. I asked. Let me demonstrate.

"Can someone tell me an ordinance that does not explode in an inferno?"
Question. Cannot be correct or incorrect.

"Hint: There is no fire involved"
Statement. An incorrect one.

Glad I could clear that up for you. So are you going with C4 or thermite?


You were correct and I concede the notion that fire alone will not do it... which was my original IMPLICIT assertion. I am big on intellectual honesty, and it was my misunderstanding that intense fire alone will do the trick.

However a jet ramming into it will.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 8, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> You also said that you could find me buildings that fell into themselves, but you haven't backed up anything you say with anything
> resembling facts.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature



Don't remember saying that... but here.

http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=344558

Just curious... have you ever been to a controlled demo? I remember it being very loud. Gargantuan booms heard for miles.

Since you are the resident munitions expert... what explosive, in tons, which is capable of bringing that building down doesn't make any noise or flash?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo

Does that look like it is falling at the rate of gravity into its own footprint? Eerie innit?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Don't remember saying that... but here.
> 
> http://www.kmov.com/video/topvideo-index.html?nvid=344558
> 
> ...



LOL and THEN you link buildings that aren't even steel reinforced, both of your links are of small( less than 10 stories) masonry (brick) buildings. There is no resemblence to a 47 story steel structure, like comparing apples and screwdrivers. So far you have proven my point even more..thanks

Oh and the second link doesn't look like free fall to me, looks like there is some resistance there as you can plainly see the whole building doesn't fall straight down, not in either of your links. Pure rubbish. You might wanna stop before the hole you have been digging for yourself gets too deep to climb out of. Olosto learned this point a few posts ago.

Your right I am a munitions expert, I was a combat engineer in the Govt service and have blown up many things with many different types of explosives. Wanna know what kind of item can cut through steel and weaken a building so severely and it does not go boom? Its called Thermite and its extremely easy to make out of totally easy to get and LEGAL supplies. Hell I can make Thermite in my garage, its very easy to do, just need rust and aluminum and a small piece of magnesium to get the process to start. You should look into it sometime and learn something new today.

Heat is not fire, if it were, your stove would have flames coming out of it when you cooked, cuz like you said heat is fire. Now my stove has these hot glowing electrically operated coils in it, there is never a fire.


One more thing, if you watch the videos you can CLEARLY hear the explosions go off before the building starts to blow, also you forgot about all the people that swear they heard explosions before the buildings fell. Not to mention the Janitor guy Rodriguez who was the only survivor and he clearly states that there were explosions even before the plane hit.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> There is fire involved. Heat and concussion. Either by electronic or conventional black powder. Shock, and heat, go boom. I would think a munitions expert such as yourself would know that...
> 
> You understand the difference between making a declarative statement and and interrogative one? I asked for someone to let me know something I was clearly unaware of. You make it out like I stated it wasn't possible. I asked. Let me demonstrate.
> 
> ...


 So now your saying that there were explosives inside that were activated by a Jet hitting it with concussive force and the flames from the ensuing burn of the fuel? cuz if you are I'm not really sure what your arguing about, cuz basically your agreeing that the buildings were blown up.

FWIW It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong..+rep to you for that.

edit: I can't +rep you cuz i +repped you earlier on a different post, just imagine I gave it to you for now while I go find others worthy of praise.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 8, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> LOL and THEN you link buildings that aren't even steel reinforced, both of your links are of small( less than 10 stories) masonry (brick) buildings. There is no resemblence to a 47 story steel structure, like comparing apples and screwdrivers. So far you have proven my point even more..thanks


I didn't realize that was the task assigned. I thought I was asked to show a building dropping in its own footprint naturally.

I have demonstrated that a car fire can weaken and collapse steel structures MUCH larger than the beams in the WTC.



NoDrama said:


> Oh and the second link doesn't look like free fall to me, looks like there is some resistance there as you can plainly see the whole building doesn't fall straight down, not in either of your links. Pure rubbish. You might wanna stop before the hole you have been digging for yourself gets too deep to climb out of. Olosto learned this point a few posts ago.


I guess... I don't have any motivation to believe that which I believe and am trying to demonstrate. I don't mind digging a hole. If I am wrong... this is the only way I am going to noodle it. I am ok with the hole. I still haven't seen, in all this time (now granted I haven't argued this topic in YEARS so there are new things I am finding) which convinces me otherwise.



NoDrama said:


> Your right I am a munitions expert, I was a combat engineer in the Govt service and have blown up many things with many different types of explosives. Wanna know what kind of item can cut through steel and weaken a building so severely and it does not go boom? Its called Thermite and its extremely easy to make out of totally easy to get and LEGAL supplies. Hell I can make Thermite in my garage, its very easy to do, just need rust and aluminum and a small piece of magnesium to get the process to start. You should look into it sometime and learn something new today.


I addressed the ingredients of thermite a few posts ago. I know how it works. Show me a precision demo with thermite. Show me a drop of something big with thermite. It is my understanding (still not any maner of expert to be sure) that they use thermite to cut beams etc... they use munitions to drop. If I am incorrect, please show me. Frankly... all I know about explosives I learned from shooting eggs... lol 



NoDrama said:


> Heat is not fire, if it were, your stove would have flames coming out of it when you cooked, cuz like you said heat is fire. Now my stove has these hot glowing electrically operated coils in it, there is never a fire.


So fire doesn't create heat? I thought I said heat and concussion. A traditional blasting cap, as I am sure you know, uses black powder to create both conditions... without the fire it would not go. It seems like splitting hairs... but I will take it on your word that you knew that. I am frankly willing to just consider you an expert on the subject at face value. You certainly seem more educated in the subject than I, so I will, frankly, defer to your judgment on such, unless something just sounds wrong and I will look it up.



NoDrama said:


> One more thing, if you watch the videos you can CLEARLY hear the explosions go off before the building starts to blow, also you forgot about all the people that swear they heard explosions before the buildings fell. Not to mention the Janitor guy Rodriguez who was the only survivor and he clearly states that there were explosions even before the plane hit.


How does that work? How many people were in that building? One janitor hears explosions?

Are we now throwing out the thermite theory and going back to more typical ordinance? I just want to be clear.



NoDrama said:


> So now your saying that there were explosives inside that were activated by a Jet hitting it with concussive force and the flames from the ensuing burn of the fuel? cuz if you are I'm not really sure what your arguing about, cuz basically your agreeing that the buildings were blown up.


I am saying if there WERE ordinance like C4, a lot of it would have gone off during the impacts it seems to me. You tell me.


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 8, 2009)

Also if it was demo, somehow they were able to start the demo at the exact floors where the plane hit, because if you notice it, collappes at the point where the plane hit it. explain that


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 8, 2009)

I have never seen a building demo'd top down and have no idea what it would do/look like... so I didn't bring that up.


----------



## olosto (Jun 8, 2009)

The C4 won't ignite without high high energy imparted on it like a plane slamming into a building would do it. C4 is remarkably stable. It was used in Vietnam to cook MRE's. Just ignite the C4 and it makes a great little fire that lasts a while.

The point is that thousands of tons of explosives would be needed and there is just no way to rig those buildings with that amount of explosives period. If people wanna argue that fine but unless you show me conclusive proof, your just a nutjob. 

Anyone ever work with thermite? Its a powder that is left open to the air for oxygen for the reaction. If a building were impacted my a plane, how are these delicate thermite casings going to stay put and actually work? No, if you look at a real demo you will see the amount of ground work it takes. Its just not possible


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Um... Jackass... there is a link in the quote. Wikified for your protection.


I rather be a jackass than a dumbass ... you should have pointed out the story was further down the page. But you still are showing a bridge that is made mostly of concrete with steel inside ... no where near the thickness of the steel used in those skyscrapers ... and the whole bridge didn't collapse ... only a section. Like with those buildings you posted collapsing ... it's not the same. They are constructed differently than those skyscapers ... 
 



what... huh? said:


> Lol... the only "stories" you have linked, with very rare exception, are not recognized or accredited papers... they are jackasses like you, sitting in their basements blogging on how the gubbament is comin' for em for spreading THE TRUTH!!! lol.


Folks this is the typical bushwhack response when ever they can't refute the evidence ... they claim the source isn't "credible" or "recognized" ... he can't say *why* they are not "credible" or "recognized" other than claiming that their some "basements blogging" ... notice since he has no way to refute Mr. Gage ... or any of those high ranking officials I posted that don't buy the "official story" he has to resort to ridicule ... notice the pretty picture? The best argument he can give is to show a guy with a tin hat ... now isn't that special?



what... huh? said:


> So you acknowledge you were wrong, and will stop saying so in the future?


Nope ... I simply proved that you said what you said ... nothing more.
Now notice here folks how he does that bushwhack spin a round ... keeps stating I'm wrong ... but has offered nothing to prove it. That's how they operate when they can't dispute the facts ... side step ... project own short coming to others ... and the turn around spin.



what... huh? said:


> That is incorrect. They must be off course with no contact for 5 minutes. More importantly we have to know they are off course... and they rarely know. Then usually the pilot is alerted, and course is corrected. Even around the pentagon. They don't just call in the guns.


Oh no ... if a plane comes to close to a secure building like the pentagon or the WH jets are called in and in a hurry.
Check it out folks it's standard procedure ... 
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Private Plane Flew Too Close To The White House[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...and as per standard operating procedure:[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fighters were scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland
and they intercepted the plane, escorting it out of the area, she said. [/FONT]*Cessna 182 Flew Too Close To The White House*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...and as per standard operating procedure:**[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At 8:03 p.m., controllers were told that NORAD had scrambled
the two F-16's from the 113th Air Wing at Andrews[/FONT]*[/FONT][/FONT]



what... huh? said:


> You link me to liars... you promote lies... and you continue to call ME a liar... what have I lied about? I mean... I don't even see anything I have been incorrect about. Let me guess... I am in on it too. I'm one of them.


Bwaa ha ha ha ... folks this is an excellent example of when the bushwhack can't dispute the evidence with evidences of their own they simply claim the messenger is a liar! Bwaa ha ha ha ... doesn't say *why* they are lairs ... or what part of the 7 min video is a lie ... as you can see in my posts I've asked him *several *times to explain ... but instead he simply states that they are liars ... wow ... let give him a hand ladies and gentlemen for his brillant debating skills 



what... huh? said:


> Every piece of evidence I have demonstrated has been credible, and you haven't addressed any of it.


You noticed how the bushwhack will lie ... then say ...no I didn't ... you did ... so what about the PM evidence? You still claim it to be credible? I address that in the 390 post ... the bullshit about Ashcoft was address ... the double talk about the bridge ... NORAD ... I could go on an on but all you folks have to do is check it out for yourselves if you haven't already.




what... huh? said:


> Because re-reading your posts is like drilling my own knees with a masonry bit on slow. You can't even speak the language... no wonder you get confused so easily. Read over the last 5 pages and count for yourself. It just wastes my time, telling you what I already told you.


Here's another bushwhacked ploy folks ... since he can't dispute any of the evidence he pretends that I can't speak the language ... yeah ... that really proves the information I've provide is wrong  pretty pathetic in his spin attempt ... they follow the same MO ... if they don't have the facts ... make shit up and if that doesn't work ... project their short comings unto the opponet ... side step as much as possible ... you'd seen it in several of his posts ... "I'll answer your question when you answer mine" that sort of thing. It's like when "Bert" in the sitcom "Soap" thought he could make himself invisible and no one could see him ... that's how the bushwhack are. They snap their fingers and pretend that their bullshit is invisible ... but guys ... we can see you ... and your bullshit ... They really believe if they say it enough people will accept it as fact. They figure if corporate media and faux news can do it so can they ... but I keep telling them that don't fly here ... but they just have a problem believing that ... so I simply must keep using them as a clear example of how stupid their mindset can be.



what... huh? said:


> Not a single one. Nothing. Nil.


See ... even though the proof is there in the posts ... they pretend it's not ... even though we've all seen it ... they pretend we did not ... 



what... huh? said:


> You can barely post at that. I have addressed quite a bit... the problem is much of this is complicated. These problems require more discussion than you are willing to give them... you just keep linking me to youtube videos as if these wing nuts are in ANY way credible. STOP LINKING ME TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LYING... BLATANTLY... AND ACTING AS IF THEY ARE CREDIBLE. It isn't much wonder that you do not understand credibility.


Here again he can't address the facts ... even in *one* 7 min. video ... he can't do that ... so since he can't he comes back to me and how I can "barely post" ... repeats again how he has address everything even though he hasn't ... then he attacks the messengers as "wing-nuts" ... never tells us *why* they are or what they said to make them that way ... only that they are ... see how they work folks when they don't have the facts to back them? Just spin, deny, and attack the messengers ... that really all they have ...notice that their leaders do that to on corporate media ... 



what... huh? said:


> Gotta say... don't feel the slightest bit embarrassed. Even if the planets were to realign and you were able to convince me I am wrong... I wouldn't be embarrassed. That is all very important to you... you cannot have a discussion without being an asshole... because you don't really care about being right... you want to win.


Here again folks his focus is on me ... not Gage or the information he presented ... now he believes he can read my mind ... isn't is neat how they do the side stepping ... you know that's what they are going to do ... yet they continue to do it ... Bwaa, ha ha ha ... I love this guy!



what... huh? said:


> You won't. You will continue to come across as a wackjob with an attitude and problems with authority.


See back to me again. I'm a "wackjob" ... I have an "attitude and problems with authority" ... that how the bushwhack and their leader operate folks. If you can't dispute the facts ... spin, attack the mesenger, and pretend they won the debate.



what... huh? said:


> I really hope you are young.


I would think it would distress you to have someone young kick your ass with facts and evidence. Perhaps you enjoy things like that ... 




what... huh? said:


> On the subject of time intercepting with jets... you don't understand a very simple concept. I cannot prove a negative. I can say, for instance, that there is not a pink elephant in your room. I cannot PROVE it. The onus of proof is on you. I have exhausted every resource I have looking for any interception in history which breached 45 min, and there is no such record. The onus is on you to disprove MY statement... because you cannot prove a negative. Do you understand?


Ladies and gentlemen it's the famous bushwhack talking point "I can't prove a negative" ... let give the boy another hand 




olosto said:


> The point is that thousands of tons of explosives would be needed and there is just no way to rig those buildings with that amount of explosives period. If people wanna argue that fine but unless you show me conclusive proof, your just a nutjob.
> 
> Anyone ever work with thermite? Its a powder that is left open to the air for oxygen for the reaction. If a building were impacted my a plane, how are these delicate thermite casings going to stay put and actually work? No, if you look at a real demo you will see the amount of ground work it takes. Its just not possible


We have shown you proof ... back on page 19 ... and I believe page 34 I have pictures of the steel beams from the tower with precision cuts ... it's not our problem that you can't comprehend the obvious ... 
I thought your wife told you to leave us alone ... bwaa ha ha ha!
 Uncle Mike will be on the air soon so I'm going to grab some chow watch a great musical ... "Kiss Me Kate" ... then check out the rest of Uncle Mike on line.

Have a good one people ... some em' if you got em'


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 8, 2009)

......OK


----------



## olosto (Jun 8, 2009)

BUAHAHAHAHAAH! That pic cracks me up! Is that FDD??? lol


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 8, 2009)

I could be persuaded to accept that the planes and fires brought down the 2 towers after a session of intense torture, but building # 7 just defies all physics and laws known to man, just watching it go down tells you that it had to be something other than fires or surface damage from falling debris, just look at the picture of the pristine shape the building is in after the 2nd tower fell. 
watch this over and over and tell me it looks totally natural, mind you this building is made of HUGE fucking steel beams, ITS not made of brick.







Every floor collapses at basically the same time and it come straight down, somehow the 2 fires must have weakened every piece of steel in the building equally, with no fuel to help it along, just papers and office furniture. Every bit of it is impossible. Even our own governments OFFICIAL statement is that " We don't know". crock of SHIIIIIT!!


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 8, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I could be persuaded to accept that the planes and fires brought down the 2 towers after a session of intense torture, but building # 7 just defies all physics and laws known to man, just watching it go down tells you that it had to be something other than fires or surface damage from falling debris, just look at the picture of the pristine shape the building is in after the 2nd tower fell.
> watch this over and over and tell me it looks totally natural, mind you this building is made of HUGE fucking steel beams, ITS not made of brick.
> 
> 
> ...


look at all the government files disappearing n the rubble . i see a lot of ppl high fiving after that


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 10, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I could be persuaded to accept that the planes and fires brought down the 2 towers after a session of intense torture, but building # 7 just defies all physics and laws known to man, just watching it go down tells you that it had to be something other than fires or surface damage from falling debris, just look at the picture of the pristine shape the building is in after the 2nd tower fell.
> watch this over and over and tell me it looks totally natural, mind you this building is made of HUGE fucking steel beams, ITS not made of brick.
> 
> 
> ...


First of all... it didn't come straight down. It spilled into the street.

Second of all... it was filled with unbattled blazes. The flames that tore through this building (which again were set by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.) were completely uncontrolled for more than 6 hours. The NYFD chief had lost over 300 men already that day and demanded the FD be pulled from the area to prevent further loss of his men in a clearly unstable ground zero. The flames simply raged. For nearly 7 hours.

The decision was made after the SW side of the building began to bulge between the 10th and 13th floors, and about an hour later began creaking... generally a pretty good sign that it is going to collapse.

As I am sure you have heard, there were 3 web trusses used to transfer load balances to the foundation. The failure of the first causing the bulge, and a redistribution of WAY too much weight to the remaining two. An hour and a half later, as predicted, the building fell.


Find me a precision demo, anywhere in the world with no boom boom.


Thermite DOES ignite under fire.


In no video has there been a single explosion. Not one.

Find me silent demo. Before your theory of detonation is even possible... find me silent demo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg&feature=PlayList&p=A87B5B23C7D279C7&index=7&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&feature=PlayList&p=A87B5B23C7D279C7&index=9&playnext=4&playnext_from=PL

the only demo I know ^

Concussive at street level.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I rather be a jackass than a dumbass ... you should have pointed out the story was further down the page. But you still are showing a bridge that is made mostly of concrete with steel inside ... no where near the thickness of the steel used in those skyscrapers ... and the whole bridge didn't collapse ... only a section. Like with those buildings you posted collapsing ... it's not the same. They are constructed differently than those skyscapers ...



So wait... so fire DOES or DOES not weaken steel? Did I lose the plot somewhere... or did I throw that out as evidence that in fact fire will weaken HUGE steel beams? I thought so. BTW look at my melted beams next to those men and your beams next to men. Not even a fifth the size of my beams. Quit changing the argument because you don't like being wrong. The question was will fire weaken steel beams. 

Obviously the answer is yes.

It took out that section, because the fire was only underneath that section. WTC fires were spread throughout the whole of several floors. That was a SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Congratulations jackass... you are a dumbass.




GrowRebel said:


> Folks this is the typical bushwhack response when ever they can't refute the evidence ... they claim the source isn't "credible" or "recognized" ... he can't say *why* they are not "credible" or "recognized" other than claiming that their some "basements blogging" ... notice since he has no way to refute Mr. Gage ... or any of those high ranking officials I posted that don't buy the "official story" he has to resort to ridicule ... notice the pretty picture? The best argument he can give is to show a guy with a tin hat ... now isn't that special?



I am pretty sure that I clearly demostrated that Mr. Gage is either lying or misleading by stating that the building came down in less than 10 seconds... while trying to suggest that time/rate of descent PROVED that the building fell faster than gravity and must have been demolished. 

That IS discrediting sir. 

Your hero is either incompetent, or a liar. I mean... wtf? If I proposed something and you found such a painful and fundamental flaw, I would eat sh1t on it.

Like the burning C4 thing. You think that was fun? It is simply honest. Eat your sh1t like a fkucking man.




GrowRebel said:


> Nope ... I simply proved that you said what you said ... nothing more.
> Now notice here folks how he does that bushwhack spin a round ... keeps stating I'm wrong ... but has offered nothing to prove it. That's how they operate when they can't dispute the facts ... side step ... project own short coming to others ... and the turn around spin.


Ummm... I clearly just disputed the "facts". BTW... do you think you have some sort of fan club you are addressing? In your sad and savage little mind do you imagine people looking to you for wisdom and heralding your posts with cheers of jubilation? 

It comes across weird. Just thought I would let you know.



GrowRebel said:


> Oh no ... if a plane comes to close to a secure building like the pentagon or the WH jets are called in and in a hurry.
> Check it out folks it's standard procedure ...
> *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Private Plane Flew Too Close To The White House[/FONT]*
> *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...and as per standard operating procedure:[/FONT]*
> ...



What do you not understand about restricted airspace? The whitehouse is under restricted airspace... the pentagon is not because it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 

I don't think I can make this any simpler.

On 911 no aircraft in the United States violated restricted or prohibited airspace.




GrowRebel said:


> Bwaa ha ha ha ... folks this is an excellent example of when the bushwhack can't dispute the evidence with evidences of their own they simply claim the messenger is a liar! Bwaa ha ha ha ... doesn't say *why* they are lairs ... or what part of the 7 min video is a lie ... as you can see in my posts I've asked him *several *times to explain ... but instead he simply states that they are liars ... wow ... let give him a hand ladies and gentlemen for his brillant debating skills


You do realize that you have done nothing but call me a liar since I entered the thread... 

Thieves think everyone steals.

I have said several times that the 10 second nonsense was EITHER a lie, or grossly incompetent. Either way... discredited.



GrowRebel said:


> You noticed how the bushwhack will lie ... then say ...no I didn't ... you did ... so what about the PM evidence? You still claim it to be credible? I address that in the 390 post ... the bullshit about Ashcoft was address ... the double talk about the bridge ... NORAD ... I could go on an on but all you folks have to do is check it out for yourselves if you haven't already.


What is PM evidence? I don't know what the 390 post is either. You say Ashcroft was addressed... I have yet to see anything which refutes it. There is no double talk about the bridge. You have no idea how NORAD functions... nor restricted airspace. YES when you enter RESTRICTED airspace jets come say hello. No planes entered restricted airspace on 9/11. 

What have I "lied" about? Please, by all means, post a lie of mine. Not a theory, evidence... a lie and demonstrate it as such. Know what that makes you if you can't? Aint irony grand?



GrowRebel said:


> Here's another bushwhacked ploy folks ... since he can't dispute any of the evidence he pretends that I can't speak the language ... yeah ... that really proves the information I've provide is wrong  pretty pathetic in his spin attempt ... they follow the same MO ... if they don't have the facts ... make shit up and if that doesn't work ... project their short comings unto the opponet ... side step as much as possible ... you'd seen it in several of his posts ... "I'll answer your question when you answer mine" that sort of thing. It's like when "Bert" in the sitcom "Soap" thought he could make himself invisible and no one could see him ... that's how the bushwhack are. They snap their fingers and pretend that their bullshit is invisible ... but guys ... we can see you ... and your bullshit ... They really believe if they say it enough people will accept it as fact. They figure if corporate media and faux news can do it so can they ... but I keep telling them that don't fly here ... but they just have a problem believing that ... so I simply must keep using them as a clear example of how stupid their mindset can be.


You cannot form a coherent sentence... you have continually made ignorant and incorrect assumptions. I have corrected you on each, and you just keep blasting ahead. 



GrowRebel said:


> See ... even though the proof is there in the posts ... they pretend it's not ... even though we've all seen it ... they pretend we did not ...
> 
> 
> Here again he can't address the facts ... even in *one* 7 min. video ... he can't do that ... so since he can't he comes back to me and how I can "barely post" ... repeats again how he has address everything even though he hasn't ... then he attacks the messengers as "wing-nuts" ... never tells us *why* they are or what they said to make them that way ... only that they are ... see how they work folks when they don't have the facts to back them? Just spin, deny, and attack the messengers ... that really all they have ...notice that their leaders do that to on corporate media ...


Deja vu.

For the record... I don't watch tv. You keep trying to bait me into this insulting game... you have been insulting to me since I got here... and yes I eventually called you a jackass... not for your theories... er... other peoples theories that you paste... but because you are acting like a jackass. So let's try this. You try and address the facts, and NOT me, my intellect, or my character and I will do the same. I wonder if you are capable.



GrowRebel said:


> Here again folks his focus is on me ... not Gage or the information he presented ... now he believes he can read my mind ... isn't is neat how they do the side stepping ... you know that's what they are going to do ... yet they continue to do it ... Bwaa, ha ha ha ... I love this guy!


I am rather fond of you too. Like a 3 legged dog. I feel both sorry for it and amazed that it can accomplish so much being so severely handicapped.



GrowRebel said:


> See back to me again. I'm a "wackjob" ... I have an "attitude and problems with authority" ... that how the bushwhack and their leader operate folks. If you can't dispute the facts ... spin, attack the mesenger, and pretend they won the debate.


deja vu.



GrowRebel said:


> I would think it would distress you to have someone young kick your ass with facts and evidence. Perhaps you enjoy things like that ...


You have presented evidence. The "Facts" you have been providing are all incorrect. For instance.




GrowRebel said:


> Bullshit ... if any plane ... and I mean any plane deviates from it course jets are scramble in minutes ... never in the history before or after 911 have jet not been scramble when a plane leaves it's fight path.


1. Jets are not called in when a plane goes "off course". Generally nobody on the ground has any idea if anybody is "off course". 

Here is a brief explanation. A pilot files a flight plan with the FAA. The plane, as it travels, is not tracked by any single entity. As the plane enters a new "controlled airspace" the pilot changes the frequency on the radio to the new one. The new tower picks up a dot on the radar and squaks it (identifies self and asks for ID in return). That tower has no earthly idea where that plane has come from, what their flight plan is, or where it is supposed to end up. The towers (the only controllers in the entire trip) exist to keep planes from hitting each other, and assign runways if they are landing and taking off. This is not battlestar galactica. There is no dradus. MOST airspace is not picked up on ground. Only airspace surrounding large airports. The effective range of this radar is between 20 and 100 nautical miles. 

IF they are unable to raise the pilot, they switch to the bordering frequencies in case the pilot switched over early/late. If that doesn't work they contact the airline to get details and see if they can raise the pilots on navcom. If the plane continues to be unresponsive, unless it threatens other aircraft, they leave it be and schedule traffic around it. If it then begins to behave oddly they FINALLY call NORAD. ATC does not control flight plans... they keep planes from bumping into each other. 

That's it. Clear? Great. 
Gonna stop saying that crap? Prolly not. 

2. Fire weakens steel beams. Period.

3. Cell phones work on planes. They drop a LOT but work.

4. The planes were not at 35,000 ft.

5. House fires vaporize bone.

6. The terrorists names were on the flight manifests.


I have provided documents, links, images, books for all of this except the cell phone thing... but I am tired of doing research you do not read. I give you links and you say "you should have told me to look further down". What is the point of even debating you? It isn't a debate. You throw out BS in 8 mile long posts, you don't read the evidence against your borrowed theories, you are obnoxiously insulting simply because I have a different opinion than you, and you do not recognize when you have been corrected.

Seriously... what is the point?



GrowRebel said:


> Ladies and gentlemen it's the famous bushwhack talking point "I can't prove a negative" ... let give the boy another hand


Prove there are no unicorns. TY.



GrowRebel said:


> We have shown you proof ... back on page 19 ... and I believe page 34 I have pictures of the steel beams from the tower with precision cuts ... it's not our problem that you can't comprehend the obvious ...
> I thought your wife told you to leave us alone ... bwaa ha ha ha!
> Uncle Mike will be on the air soon so I'm going to grab some chow watch a great musical ... "Kiss Me Kate" ... then check out the rest of Uncle Mike on line.
> 
> Have a good one people ... some em' if you got em'


Nothing on 19. Want to know how to shear a 2 ft beam? Drop 500,000,000 pounds of concrete and steel on it against another 500,000,000 pounds of it trying to withstand the impact. Ever seen sheet metal cut? Same thing only bigger.


I will take that last bit of advice... and wish you the same


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 10, 2009)

Couple late additions. We determine a plane is "lost" when its ID transponder stops functioning. Either due to malfunction or the switch being turned off.

If grow cannot engage in civil discourse please have chrome dome ask any questions.

Lastly... Here is how you operate...

You paste a mountain of info. When reply, you try and insult the poster to unsettle them. If a "fact" is disproven, you either change the scope of the original statement to create strawman arguments, simply say "nuh uh", or bury it in 300 miles of unrelated drivel and insults. This is why I keep asking you to address one argument at a time. As in one post at a time so as not to obfuscate your assertions which have been demonstrated to be false. This is also the exact reason you refuse. 

Most people do not engage you because you are tiring, insulting, and intellectually dishonest. Not because they are afraid of truth. 

If you do decide to drop the attitude and actually have a real debate, I will address only one topic at a time until it is put to bed.


----------



## bryant228 (Jun 10, 2009)

I love how everyone is an expert in engineering and demoliton. And no, I did not read all 44 pages of this post. One, I dont need too, it's the same bullshit I've heard a million times, and two I did skim over some of it. Yes, I've seen all the conspiracy videos with the so called "experts". Most of the issues in questions where of regular people giving their on site comentary as it happened. Real, top or their game, professional engineers have said the plans brought the towers down. How can the government even attempt to cover this us? The government could never keep this covered up if they had anything to do with it. There would have had to have been atleast 50-100 people involved.

I'll tell you alittle story of a government cover up. It involved just 2 people. One was in a high ranking government position. Does any of this ring a bell yet? I'll tell who was involved, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Yes, I know, how can this even compare. Well, it was a government cover up. And it only involved 2 people. Do you know the lengths they, both of them, went through to keep it covered up. And it still got out. Mainly because of the republicans. I suggest you read up more on that alittle more. It's some pretty fun reading too.

Also, for the government to be involved in the 911 attacks, it would have taken reaources of both parties, democrate and republican. How the hell could they have pulled that off when they can't even run the meet eye to eye on a budget. 

The fact is someone would have came out about it now. Something would have surfaced by now about their involvement. And do you really think our government is that smart to pull this off? Do you really think that? And why would they want to do it? Yeah, the 2 wars we have are really paying off now. When you say our governemnt did this, your really making them look good.....and smart I guess. Please don't do that. Our government is filled with a bunch of rich assholes who only thing about themselves and how to get elected again. To give them the praise that they could pull this off is ignorant. And your pissing all over the people and families who lost loved ones on that tragic day.

I blame the internet. We are just a bunch of mice following the flute. Just because someone posts something on the internet of someone questioning something, does not mean it is a fact. And everytime I hear something involved in this conspiracy, I see America following the road of the stupid and selfish more and more. Every other country laughs at the U.S. because of this so called conspiacy theory. Good job America! You just made us look even more stupid and selfish. Thanks!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> So wait... so fire DOES or DOES not weaken steel?


It depends on the steel ... it can weaken rebarb ... the steel rods in the concrete that supports the bridge ... but the steel use in those skyscapers are massive compare the the steel used in the bridge ... and are fireproofed ... big difference ... excepted to the bushwhacked ... 



what... huh? said:


> Did I lose the plot somewhere...


You lost the plot the moment you entered this thread ... 



what... huh? said:


> or did I throw that out as evidence that in fact fire will weaken HUGE steel beams?


You haven't presented any evidence that fire will weaken huge steel beams ... where were the huge steel beams in the bridge? ... there were none. No steel in the buildings you posted ... none ... so you haven't proven anything.




what... huh? said:


> I thought so. BTW look at my melted beams next to those men and your beams next to men. Not even a fifth the size of my beams.


Where are these steel beams? ... next to what men? You will have to point them out because I didn't see them. Not to mention them being bigger than the steel beams in the WTC ... is not possible so point it out ... now watch this folks ... he won't be able to do it ... once again.



what... huh? said:


> Quit changing the argument because you don't like being wrong. The question was will fire weaken steel beams.
> Obviously the answer is yes.


No the question was did fire bring down those towers ... the answer is obviously no.



what... huh? said:


> It took out that section, because the fire was only underneath that section. WTC fires were spread throughout the whole of several floors. That was a SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
> 
> Congratulations jackass... you are a dumbass.


Those building collapsed from the bottom and fell straight down ... the fires were on the upper floors ... fire can not melt steel beams that have been fire proofed plus the fire wasn't nearly hot enough to do so ... 
once again folks the bushwhack tries to project his own short coming on to his opponent ... what ever you say dumbass ...
 



what... huh? said:


> I am pretty sure that I clearly demostrated that Mr. Gage is either lying or misleading by stating that the building came down in less than 10 seconds...


Bwaa ha ha ha ... that's his argument folks! because it came down in less than 10 seconds! ha ha ha ... you only prove our point ... which is those buildings can't come crashing straight down in a few seconds! Bwaa ha ha ... and notice folks ... nothing about the evidence of thermite being found.



what... huh? said:


> while trying to suggest that time/rate of descent PROVED that the building fell faster than gravity and must have been demolished.
> 
> That IS discrediting sir.


Bwaa ha ha ha ... you're discediting sir ... bwaa ha ha ha.



what... huh? said:


> Your hero is either incompetent, or a liar. I mean... wtf?


Says the debating expert whos dumbass argument is because a blow it out his ass "time/rate of desent" bwaa ha ha ha ... now that's a good one!




what... huh? said:


> If I proposed something and you found such a painful and fundamental flaw, I would eat sh1t on it.


"Painful and fundamental flaw"! bwaa ha ha ha too funny! 



what... huh? said:


> Like the burning C4 thing. You think that was fun? It is simply honest. Eat your sh1t like a fkucking man.


And you eat shit like a fucking woman! ha ha ha ... 



what... huh? said:


> Ummm... I clearly just disputed the "facts".


Ummmm .... you clearly just did the same bullshit you always do ... show nothing ... make ridiculous statements ... and side step the obvious .... ladies and gentlemen lets give the dumbass another hand ... 



what... huh? said:


> BTW... do you think you have some sort of fan club you are addressing? In your sad and savage little mind do you imagine people looking to you for wisdom and heralding your posts with cheers of jubilation?
> 
> It comes across weird. Just thought I would let you know.


There are "viewers at home" that stop by to see me make a fool of you ... whether you want to accept it or not ... Since you think it's so weird ... don't worry about it. 




what... huh? said:


> What do you not understand about restricted airspace? The whitehouse is under restricted airspace... the pentagon is not because it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
> 
> I don't think I can make this any simpler.
> 
> On 911 no aircraft in the United States violated restricted or prohibited airspace.


Like I said ... if something goes wrong NORAD is there ... Just that one day ... they were delayed ... you can go on and on about this as much as you want ... but NORAD is there for a purpose.




what... huh? said:


> You do realize that you have done nothing but call me a liar since I entered the thread...


No ... you have done nothing but call my sources lies with nothing to back it up other than making ridiculous statements. ... like that "time/rate" bullshit that you pulled out your ass.



what... huh? said:


> Thieves think everyone steals.
> 
> I have said several times that the 10 second nonsense was EITHER a lie, or grossly incompetent. Either way... discredited.


Only a dumbass of your caliber would believe that.



what... huh? said:


> What is PM evidence? I don't know what the 390 post is either.


More proof that you are truly a dumbass. I think I make post hilight from that interview making the PM guy look stupid.



what... huh? said:


> You say Ashcroft was addressed... I have yet to see anything which refutes it.


The man did testify under oath ... he could lie his ass off with no repurcussions what so ever! Why the hell should we believe him?



what... huh? said:


> There is no double talk about the bridge.


Yes there is because there is no huge thick steel in the bridge like there are in the buildings!



what... huh? said:


> You have no idea how NORAD functions... nor restricted airspace. YES when you enter RESTRICTED airspace jets come say hello. No planes entered restricted airspace on 9/11.


No you have no idea how NORAD functions ... I have submitted a link with evidence that NORAD had time and oppoturnity to stop those jets ... yet they didn't all you've done is blow it out your ass.



what... huh? said:


> What have I "lied" about? Please, by all means, post a lie of mine. Not a theory, evidence... a lie and demonstrate it as such. Know what that makes you if you can't? Aint irony grand?


When did I say you were lying? You are the only one that has been accusing people of lying ... here again folks ... he projects his own short coming on to his opponets ... 





what... huh? said:


> You cannot form a coherent sentence... you have continually made ignorant and incorrect assumptions. I have corrected you on each, and you just keep blasting ahead.


Here we go again folks ... he couldn't dispute Gage other than his ridiculous statement ... with no backing I might add ... so one again he attack me ... since he can't attack the evidence ... so he fall back on the projection thang ... and pretends that he has made valid points ... aren't the bushwhacked fun to watch?





what... huh? said:


> Deja vu.
> 
> For the record... I don't watch tv. You keep trying to bait me into this insulting game... you have been insulting to me since I got here...


Oh come now ... you must admit this is a lot of fun ... I'm have a great time aren't you?



what... huh? said:


> and yes I eventually called you a jackass... not for your theories... er... other peoples theories that you paste... but because you are acting like a jackass. So let's try this. You try and address the facts, and NOT me, my intellect, or my character and I will do the same. I wonder if you are capable.


There goes the projection thang again folks ... will he ever learn that we are on to him?



what... huh? said:


> I am rather fond of you too. Like a 3 legged dog. I feel both sorry for it and amazed that it can accomplish so much being so severely handicapped.


Yes I do pretty well don't I ... but it's really not that hard against a bushwhacked minded person ... 



what... huh? said:


> You have presented evidence. The "Facts" you have been providing are all incorrect. For instance.
> 1. Jets are not called in when a plane goes "off course". Generally nobody on the ground has any idea if anybody is "off course".


Says the bushwhack with no backing ... 




what... huh? said:


> Here is a brief explanation. A pilot files a flight plan with the FAA. The plane, as it travels, is not tracked by any single entity. As the plane enters a new "controlled airspace" the pilot changes the frequency on the radio to the new one. The new tower picks up a dot on the radar and squaks it (identifies self and asks for ID in return). That tower has no earthly idea where that plane has come from, what their flight plan is, or where it is supposed to end up. The towers (the only controllers in the entire trip) exist to keep planes from hitting each other, and assign runways if they are landing and taking off. This is not battlestar galactica. There is no dradus. MOST airspace is not picked up on ground. Only airspace surrounding large airports. The effective range of this radar is between 20 and 100 nautical miles.


Say the bushwhacked with nothing to back his statement ... 



what... huh? said:


> IF they are unable to raise the pilot, they switch to the bordering frequencies in case the pilot switched over early/late. If that doesn't work they contact the airline to get details and see if they can raise the pilots on navcom. If the plane continues to be unresponsive, unless it threatens other aircraft, they leave it be and schedule traffic around it. If it then begins to behave oddly they FINALLY call NORAD. ATC does not control flight plans... they keep planes from bumping into each other.
> 
> That's it. Clear? Great.
> Gonna stop saying that crap? Prolly not.


Says the bushwhacked with absolutely no link to a source to back his statement ... I guess we are to accept him at his word ... not.



what... huh? said:


> 2. Fire weakens steel beams. Period.


And it doesn't cause a skyscaper to collapes on itself in a few seconds. Period.



what... huh? said:


> 3. Cell phones work on planes. They drop a LOT but work.


Not at the attitude the planes were traveling ... link posted.



what... huh? said:


> 4. The planes were not at 35,000 ft.


Source link?



what... huh? said:


> 5. House fires vaporize bone.


Bullshit ... and I provide links to back it up ... 



what... huh? said:


> 6. The terrorists names were on the flight manifests.


No ... you only show a flight manifest ... not the manifest with the so called hijackers ... wow you are really wacked in the head.



what... huh? said:


> I have provided documents, links, images, books for all of this except the cell phone thing...


Yeah ... right ... 



what... huh? said:


> but I am tired of doing research you do not read. I give you links and you say "you should have told me to look further down". What is the point of even debating you? It isn't a debate.


I have read it ... that's how I was able to show the folks it was bullshit.




what... huh? said:


> You throw out BS in 8 mile long posts,


That you seem to have a problem refuting with evidence that we can check out ... the stuff that we are able to check out is easily discredited like the Popular Mechanics (PM) bullshit you tried to use.



what... huh? said:


> you don't read the evidence against your borrowed theories, you are obnoxiously insulting simply because I have a different opinion than you, and you do not recognize when you have been corrected.
> 
> Seriously... what is the point?


No because you are stupid to the obvious ... that's why.



what... huh? said:


> Prove there are no unicorns. TY.


there are unicorns ... you've seen one haven't you? Know what it look like don't you ... ha ha ha ... 



what... huh? said:


> Nothing on 19. Want to know how to shear a 2 ft beam? Drop 500,000,000 pounds of concrete and steel on it against another 500,000,000 pounds of it trying to withstand the impact. Ever seen sheet metal cut? Same thing only bigger.
> 
> 
> I will take that last bit of advice... and wish you the same


Source? Link?


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> It depends on the steel ... it can weaken rebarb ... the steel rods in the concrete that supports the bridge ... but the steel use in those skyscapers are massive compare the the steel used in the bridge ... and are fireproofed ... big difference ... excepted to the bushwhacked ...



That look like rebar to you?







Again... my beams are bigger. You can at least see if not read yes?








This is you.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2009)

bryant228 said:


> I love how everyone is an expert in engineering and demoliton. And no, I did not read all 44 pages of this post. One, I dont need too, it's the same bullshit I've heard a million times, and two I did skim over some of it. Yes, I've seen all the conspiracy videos with the so called "experts". Most of the issues in questions where of regular people giving their on site comentary as it happened. Real, top or their game, professional engineers have said the plans brought the towers down.


Professional architects and engineers state that thermite brought those towers down ... those that tried to back the government version have been discredited ... 



bryant228 said:


> How can the government even attempt to cover this us?


By not having a open public non partisan investigation ... where witnesses must testify under oath. They are not doing this ... why? It would stop all the protest and demands ... so why?



bryant228 said:


> The government could never keep this covered up if they had anything to do with it. There would have had to have been atleast 50-100 people involved.


The government hasn't been able to cover it up why the hell do you think there is so much on 911? Why do you think most people don't buy the so called official story?



bryant228 said:


> I'll tell you alittle story of a government cover up. It involved just 2 people. One was in a high ranking government position. Does any of this ring a bell yet? I'll tell who was involved, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Yes, I know, how can this even compare. Well, it was a government cover up. And it only involved 2 people. Do you know the lengths they, both of them, went through to keep it covered up. And it still got out. Mainly because of the republicans. I suggest you read up more on that alittle more. It's some pretty fun reading too.


That wasn't a government cover-up ... that was a blow job that the GOP wanted to focus on to get at Clinton ... a government cover up is the murder 3000 people in order to start an illegal war and gain more executive powers ...money for corporate friends ... and to suppress the people with the so called patriot act.



bryant228 said:


> Also, for the government to be involved in the 911 attacks, it would have taken reaources of both parties, democrate and republican.


Bingo ... why do you think they are not having an open non partisan investigation ... the elite on both side would fry. They will go way out of their way to see that doesn't happen.



bryant228 said:


> How the hell could they have pulled that off when they can't even run the meet eye to eye on a budget.


They didn't pull it off ... if they had they wouldn't be all these calls for an investigation ... now would there?



bryant228 said:


> The fact is someone would have came out about it now.


Plenty have ... I have posted links to organization and individuals who have spoken out ... where you been?




bryant228 said:


> Something would have surfaced by now about their involvement.


... plenty has ... if you are expecting corporate media to cover it or won't accept anything unless corporate media covers it ... you are SOL.



bryant228 said:


> And do you really think our government is that smart to pull this off? Do you really think that?


Like I said before ... they didn't pull it off.



bryant228 said:


> And why would they want to do it? Yeah, the 2 wars we have are really paying off now.


Are you aware of the profits the defense contractors and oil companies have made since these illegal wars began? Get real. They are looting our treasury to line their greedy pockets ... 



bryant228 said:


> When you say our governemnt did this, your really making them look good.....and smart I guess.


Only to those that think the official story is correct.




bryant228 said:


> Please don't do that. Our government is filled with a bunch of rich assholes who only thing about themselves and how to get elected again.


You have to get it through your head that the high members of government didn't get away with anything ... hence the outcry for a public non partisan investigation with testimony under oath.




bryant228 said:


> To give them the praise that they could pull this off is ignorant.


They didn't pull this off ... 



bryant228 said:


> And your pissing all over the people and families who lost loved ones on that tragic day.


You'll have to explain that one to me ... how am I pissing on the families?



bryant228 said:


> I blame the internet. We are just a bunch of mice following the flute. Just because someone posts something on the internet of someone questioning something, does not mean it is a fact.


If it makes sense and follows science and gives clear evidence ... it's pretty hard to deny it as fact.



bryant228 said:


> And everytime I hear something involved in this conspiracy, I see America following the road of the stupid and selfish more and more. Every other country laughs at the U.S. because of this so called conspiacy theory.


Several countries ... and organizations ... I've posted links ... have already determine 911 was an inside job ... are they wackjobs too?



bryant228 said:


> Good job America! You just made us look even more stupid and selfish. Thanks!


Thank God for the internet America ... if not for that we wouldn't know any of the crimes being committed by high level members of our government.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> That look like rebar to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rebar is inside the concrete ... hello? Rebar is use to construct bridges. It reinforces the concrete ... hello?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Couple late additions. We determine a plane is "lost" when its ID transponder stops functioning. Either due to malfunction or the switch being turned off.
> 
> If grow cannot engage in civil discourse please have chrome dome ask any questions.


I will let "chrome dome" as you call him only because you have been unable to dispute any of his posts ... handle this one ... 



what... huh? said:


> Lastly... Here is how you operate...
> 
> You paste a mountain of info. When reply, you try and insult the poster to unsettle them.


If you call trying to get you to refute the evidence ... with something creditable and believable ... unsettling .. so be it ... 



what... huh? said:


> If a "fact" is disproven, you either change the scope of the original statement to create strawman arguments, simply say "nuh uh", or bury it in 300 miles of unrelated drivel and insults.


Once again folks at home he tries to project his short comings on to me ... and he will never tire of if no matter how stupid it makes him look. ... and when have I ever said ... "nuh uh" love to see that. See how they love to make shit up when they have no argument?



what... huh? said:


> This is why I keep asking you to address one argument at a time.


Folks have you notice the number of times he as said this yet it is he who goes on to something else ... I merely address it. Check it out in the past posts.



what... huh? said:


> As in one post at a time so as not to obfuscate your assertions which have been demonstrated to be false. This is also the exact reason you refuse.


See how he keeps proving me wrong when he hasn't? They are all like that ... that's why they are so fun.



what... huh? said:


> Most people do not engage you because you are tiring, insulting, and intellectually dishonest. Not because they are afraid of truth.


I have no problem what so ever with people engaging me ...that's just another one of your made up side stepping ploys ... doesn't work.



what... huh? said:


> If you do decide to drop the attitude and actually have a real debate, I will address only one topic at a time until it is put to bed.


Yawn ... same old same old ... what ever ... and if you don't like the attitude ... you don't have to post ... pretty simple concept don't you think?


----------



## bryant228 (Jun 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Professional architects and engineers state that thermite brought those towers down ... those that tried to back the government version have been discredited ...
> 
> 
> By not having a open public non partisan investigation ... where witnesses must testify under oath. They are not doing this ... why? It would stop all the protest and demands ... so why?
> ...


Wow, you really want to belive this. I guess thats everyones right. I see you've been on here awhile now arguing this. You know, when this all came out, I listened. I try to give everyone their due. Alot of proof was given on both sides. But in the end, it just didn't add up. You have not shown me anything new. I've seen all the so called "evidence" I need to see. 

I am an engineer, and a pretty damn good one if I may say so myself. Alot of this is just garbage. I can't belive I'm on another thread after all these years arguing again. 

I think some people need to feel they are a part of something. They can't except a simple answer for this awful day. Radical, islamic extremist took over 4 planes and crashed them into large buildings. I know, I'm crazy to think that something so simple could happen. 

If all this did happen they way you said it did, it will come out, and people will go to jail. You can't cover something like this up. You just can't. I don't care how much so called evidence you pull from the internet. It's been 8 years. If all this really happened, why is no one in jail. And why is the hype of this dying down?

Look, dude, good luck in your quest. You seem very passionate, and thats good. Too few people are passionate about anything. You seem to want to catch the people that did it. And you know what, the government is somewhat responsible our international policy with the islamic world. But be careful what you belive.

My dad always had a saying, believe nothing what you hear, half of what you see, and when those don't work, majority rules. But that saying can work in your favor..........except for the majority part. 

Oh, I forget, did we land on the moon?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2009)

bryant228 said:


> Wow, you really want to belive this.


No ... I just see the obvious.



bryant228 said:


> I guess thats everyones right. I see you've been on here awhile now arguing this. You know, when this all came out, I listened. I try to give everyone their due. Alot of proof was given on both sides. But in the end, it just didn't add up.


What didn't add up?



bryant228 said:


> You have not shown me anything new. I've seen all the so called "evidence" I need to see.
> 
> I am an engineer, and a pretty damn good one if I may say so myself. Alot of this is just garbage. I can't belive I'm on another thread after all these years arguing again.


Ladies and Gentlemen we have an engineer in the audience ... since the other guy can't seem to dispute Gage's 7 min video perhaps you could? Since you are an engineer and all it will be easy for you to point out where Gage is full of shit. We all will be waiting with bated breath for your response to this one.



bryant228 said:


> I think some people need to feel they are a part of something.


And some people are so brainwashed that they can't accept a simple fact. Certain members of government have no problem what so ever killing american or anyone else. Some people just can't handle the truth.



bryant228 said:


> They can't except a simple answer for this awful day.


With all the unanswered questions and improbability ... ah ... no ... not without an public non partisan investigation with witnesses under oath. Get it? So you can blow that simple answer out your ass all day long ... until a real investigation takes place ... only the minority you are in accepts the "simple answer". The rest of us want the fucking truth!



bryant228 said:


> Radical, islamic extremist took over 4 planes and crashed them into large buildings. I know, I'm crazy to think that something so simple could happen.


You got that right ... I don't believe for one damn minute that these individuals broke through all of the US defenses ... not one minute.



bryant228 said:


> If all this did happen they way you said it did, it will come out, and people will go to jail.


You got that right ... because there are plenty of us "tin foil hat" jobs to see to it ... check it people ... the DOJ won't do their job ... but we are going to find a why to bring these criminals to justice.

9/11: We Will Never Forget
[youtube]0jk7PUudOqA[/youtube]

You're outnumbered ... 





bryant228 said:


> AYou can't cover something like this up. You just can't.


Like I said before ...THEY HAVEN'T WE'RE ON TO THEM ... there's just a minority that don't ... no problem there .... there is enough of us to keep the pressure on ... 




bryant228 said:


> I don't care how much so called evidence you pull from the internet. It's been 8 years. If all this really happened, why is no one in jail.


Because the people that control the DOJ are behind 911 ... it's clear the DOJ refuse to uphold the law ... that's a no brainer ... 



bryant228 said:


> And why is the hype of this dying down?


Only in your mind ... that video was put up this month and there are plenty others. 




bryant228 said:


> Look, dude, good luck in your quest.


Look, lady ... thanks ... 




bryant228 said:


> You seem very passionate, and thats good. Too few people are passionate about anything. You seem to want to catch the people that did it. And you know what, the government is somewhat responsible our international policy with the islamic world. But be careful what you belive.


I'm always passionate for justice ... it's the libra in me ... who wouldn't want the real people behind this punish? It's not a question of "belief" it's a matter of facts ... and serious unanswered questions.




bryant228 said:


> My dad always had a saying, believe nothing what you hear, half of what you see, and when those don't work, majority rules. But that saying can work in your favor..........except for the majority part.


All of it's in my favor ... especially the majority part ... already been establish long ago in this thread that the majority don't buy the government bullshit story. Even a poll on this forum indicated most posters didn't buy the government's bullshit.




bryant228 said:


> Oh, I forget, did we land on the moon?


Instead of taking my word for it perhaps you should look it up and find out for yourself ... what a concept!


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The rebar is inside the concrete ... hello? Rebar is use to construct bridges. It reinforces the concrete ... hello?


Lol... So are you thinkin if the rebar gets hot it gets heavier? Because those 5 i-beams (which are larger than the wtc beams... Notice you dropped that argument) are BENT and FOLDED. 

I am not talking about WTC right now, so quit bringing it up. We will cross that bridge when we get to it (couldn't resist). I am talking about THAT accident, and the resulting damage to the i-beams on the bridge.


Now concede so we can move on.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Lol... So are you thinkin if the rebar gets hot it gets heavier? Because those 5 i-beams (which are larger than the wtc beams... Notice you dropped that argument) are BENT and FOLDED.


You only prove my point ... the metal is "BENT and FOLDED" ... yet the WTC came crashing straight down instead of the "bent and folded" metal that we should have seen in a building still standing. ... oh larger beams eh?





NOT





See how big and thick and how many beams there are in those buildings folks? Way more than in a bridge and far bigger ... so wrong again dummy.






No way on God's green earth can those steel beams come crashing down in seconds after burning for less than 2 hours NO WAY ... you have to be stupid to believe otherwise. 
 


what... huh? said:


> I am not talking about WTC right now, so quit bringing it up. We will cross that bridge when we get to it (couldn't resist). I am talking about THAT accident, and the resulting damage to the i-beams on the bridge.


The damage to the bridge is believable ... but not the skyscrapers ... all that metal didn't get weaken by fire alone ... it had a lot of help to bring all that steel down ... that bridge had no where near the amount of metal in a skyscapers ... and there was no melting metal with the bridge like with the towers.




what... huh? said:


> Now concede so
> we can move on.


Okay I concede that I made you look stupid again


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 10, 2009)

What about "don't" do you not understand? I am not talking about 9/11/01. I am talking about 4/27/09. Worry not, I will get back to 9/11 and address all of these concerns then. We must first establish at least SOME facts.*

So you accept that the bridges structural steel beams were weakened by the truck fire, which then stressed and buckled under the load of the bridge?*

That is the on-ramp from the maze to the bay bridge... this is a massive structure.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 10, 2009)

The above is a yes or no question btw. That is all I require. Don't worry... it won't hurt a bit.


----------



## bryant228 (Jun 10, 2009)

Dude, you don't know what your talking about. The towers didn't come down just because of the fire, but the weight as well. Ok, I can't do this again. I swore that I wouldnt get into anymore debates about the twin towers. Seriously, how strong do you think metal is? It can come down with the right amount of pressure from above. For explosives to be used a demo crew would have to have been those buildings for at least a week setting up. You just don't throw bombs in and push a button. How hard is to believe that a plan crashing into a building will bring it down. And your going to have to do something better then a poll on rollitup to convince me that your the majoritity in this. 

And what profession are you in? I would really like to know. Look, like I said, your very passionate about. And for that, I have to give you respect. Too many people are not passionate about anything. So do something about. Seriously, write your local rep. Get lawyers involved. And try to put put who ever you said did this to jail. Go out and get some justice done besides hanging out on a computer all day looking stull up on the internet. Or go to school for engineering! Good luck!

I'll let you and the other guy back to your debate.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 10, 2009)

What ..huh? Thats not molten metal, its water from the firefighters in that picture, also, the main beam is not twisted or bent and did not come crashing down, your pic plainly shows the road laying over the top of it. The large pillar is made of concrete and when concrete gets heated it tends to start to flake off and then disintegrate. the beams used in that bridge are about 1/10 the size of the beams in the towers. Using a bridge as your basis of argument is again like comparing apples and screwdrivers, find a steel skyscraper that burnt and fell down, you can't because its only happened 3 times EVER, and coincidentally all on the same day and at the same place. I can show you lots of pics of burnt skyscrapers that DON"T fall and have already. Oh and having a pilots license I can very much tell you that in airspace that is as congested as New York you definitely have to follow a flight plan and can barely go off that plan before the tower will call you on it and demand you get back into your designated path, You don't get to just fly anywhere, YOU MUST follow your flight plan and the towers instructions, there is no other way or they call the authorities. You have to ask for permission to do anything not on your plan.

bryant228. You are certainly NOT an engineer of any caliber or perhaps your just not a structural engineer but an electrical or service engineer, Custodial perhaps?. If the weight was a factor then the towers should have collapsed before they were even finished being built, Because the weight of the plane was certainly well within the structural limits. it sounds to me like your saying that the towers somehow miraculously by god became some 1000 million tons heavier, cuz any real engineer could tell you that they way overbuild skyscrapers so they dont just come falling down when the wind blows. And these buildings were DESIGNED to be hit MULTIPLE times by Large passenger Airplanes. Sorry weight certainly had nothing at all to do with this. As an engineer you would also know that burning jet fuel cannot soften or melt steel, its just not hot enough. And for those of you who think jet fuel is volatile and explosive, your WRONG, I can throw lit cigarettes into a pool of jet A and have a VERY good chance that nothing would happen , the cig would be put out by the fuel without ever lighting its just not a very volatile fuel like gasoline or alcohol. Takes a lot of compression and heat to get it to ignite, like diesel fuel but even less refined. Real life isn't Hollywood Make Believe. In Die Hard 2 he lit the trail of jet fuel and make the plane blow up in mid air, An impossibility if there ever was one. I see on CSI all the time where they take some crappy ATM picture and blow it up and their special picture computer extapolates the data and is able to magnify a pixel of information to provide them with the proof of a license plate reflected in the window of the store across the street, HA HA HA HA there is no such computer that is able to do that, its impossible . ATM cameras are digital and 1 pixel of info is 1 pixel of info, not 100, 000 more when magnified. Or how about when a car goes off the cliff and explodes on impact, another HOLLYWOOD moment and still people believe those things happen. Drive 1000 cars off a cliff and my money is on none of them blowing up. Yet people actually believe their car will blow up if it went off, people are easy to pull the wool over their eyes and get them to believe ANYTHING if done correctly. You can even get people to believe that Steel ( not steel reinforced ) Skyscrapers burn so hot they disintegrate in midair and collapse in fairly nice heaps of steel and concrete.

The towers were closed for 2 weeks prior to this happening, only maintenance personnel were allowed inside. this was all under the guise of computer and electrical updates, you can look that fact up, so plenty of time to install the things needed for this to happen.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 11, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> What ..huh? Thats not molten metal, its water from the firefighters in that picture, also, the main beam is not twisted or bent and did not come crashing down, your pic plainly shows the road laying over the top of it.
> 
> The large pillar is made of concrete and when concrete gets heated it tends to start to flake off and then disintegrate. the beams used in that bridge are about 1/10 the size of the beams in the towers.
> 
> Using a bridge as your basis of argument is again like comparing apples and screwdrivers, find a steel skyscraper that burnt and fell down, you can't because its only happened 3 times EVER, and coincidentally all on the same day and at the same place. I can show you lots of pics of burnt skyscrapers that DON"T fall and have already. Oh and having a pilots license I can very much tell you that in airspace that is as congested as New York you definitely have to follow a flight plan and can barely go off that plan before the tower will call you on it and demand you get back into your designated path, You don't get to just fly anywhere, YOU MUST follow your flight plan and the towers instructions, there is no other way or they call the authorities. You have to ask for permission to do anything not on your plan.


Oh... so you are a pilot. Why didn't you correct your friend when he made so many erroneous statements about FAA and NORAD procedures? I guess truth only matters when it serves you.

You aren't even REQUIRED to file a flight plan unless you are IFR or flying in air defense zones. They do NOT call in jets if you are off your flight plan. No. They exhaust every effort to contact you, and unless something else is wrong, you get a pilot deviation report when you land. That's it.

You guys smoke too much dope. I have pictures of both beams with people next to them for scale. Actually look at the pictures. Also... for the 3rd time, my point does not concern the WTC. My argument concerns the "fire wont melt steel" argument. I really don't require you guys to know where I am going before I get there. It is a yes or no question. Not concerning WTC... concerning physics... metallurgy.

This is also not folded concrete or water... it is a series of 6 bent i-beams at LEAST the size of the WTC beams. WTC beams were 22" x 54". See attachment below other images.


----------



## bryant228 (Jun 11, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> What ..huh? Thats not molten metal, its water from the firefighters in that picture, also, the main beam is not twisted or bent and did not come crashing down, your pic plainly shows the road laying over the top of it. The large pillar is made of concrete and when concrete gets heated it tends to start to flake off and then disintegrate. the beams used in that bridge are about 1/10 the size of the beams in the towers. Using a bridge as your basis of argument is again like comparing apples and screwdrivers, find a steel skyscraper that burnt and fell down, you can't because its only happened 3 times EVER, and coincidentally all on the same day and at the same place. I can show you lots of pics of burnt skyscrapers that DON"T fall and have already. Oh and having a pilots license I can very much tell you that in airspace that is as congested as New York you definitely have to follow a flight plan and can barely go off that plan before the tower will call you on it and demand you get back into your designated path, You don't get to just fly anywhere, YOU MUST follow your flight plan and the towers instructions, there is no other way or they call the authorities. You have to ask for permission to do anything not on your plan.
> 
> bryant228. You are certainly NOT an engineer of any caliber or perhaps your just not a structural engineer but an electrical or service engineer, Custodial perhaps?. If the weight was a factor then the towers should have collapsed before they were even finished being built, Because the weight of the plane was certainly well within the structural limits. it sounds to me like your saying that the towers somehow miraculously by god became some 1000 million tons heavier, cuz any real engineer could tell you that they way overbuild skyscrapers so they dont just come falling down when the wind blows. And these buildings were DESIGNED to be hit MULTIPLE times by Large passenger Airplanes. Sorry weight certainly had nothing at all to do with this. As an engineer you would also know that burning jet fuel cannot soften or melt steel, its just not hot enough. And for those of you who think jet fuel is volatile and explosive, your WRONG, I can throw lit cigarettes into a pool of jet A and have a VERY good chance that nothing would happen , the cig would be put out by the fuel without ever lighting its just not a very volatile fuel like gasoline or alcohol. Takes a lot of compression and heat to get it to ignite, like diesel fuel but even less refined. Real life isn't Hollywood Make Believe. In Die Hard 2 he lit the trail of jet fuel and make the plane blow up in mid air, An impossibility if there ever was one. I see on CSI all the time where they take some crappy ATM picture and blow it up and their special picture computer extapolates the data and is able to magnify a pixel of information to provide them with the proof of a license plate reflected in the window of the store across the street, HA HA HA HA there is no such computer that is able to do that, its impossible . ATM cameras are digital and 1 pixel of info is 1 pixel of info, not 100, 000 more when magnified. Or how about when a car goes off the cliff and explodes on impact, another HOLLYWOOD moment and still people believe those things happen. Drive 1000 cars off a cliff and my money is on none of them blowing up. Yet people actually believe their car will blow up if it went off, people are easy to pull the wool over their eyes and get them to believe ANYTHING if done correctly. You can even get people to believe that Steel ( not steel reinforced ) Skyscrapers burn so hot they disintegrate in midair and collapse in fairly nice heaps of steel and concrete.
> 
> The towers were closed for 2 weeks prior to this happening, only maintenance personnel were allowed inside. this was all under the guise of computer and electrical updates, you can look that fact up, so plenty of time to install the things needed for this to happen.


Guys, anything is possible. They teach you that in school. Thats what engineers do, do the impossible. I've done this before, and swore I wouldn't get sucked into these kind of debates. Your just talking about things you found on the internet, lol, and comparing things to CSI. You have no professional back ground on these matters. I assure you, metal can heat up. When that happens, it weakens the integrity of the steel. That, combined with the added weight of the upper floors crashing down, it's a wonder the buildings stood so long. Do you have any sort of building background? When constructed uniformly, yes, it's not going to come down. A plane slamming into the side of it and taking out almost half of the structural columns. That changes things.

Ok, let me just ask this final question and I'll leave it at that. Why is it so impossible to believe that 9 radical Islamic men could do this? Why is that so hard to believe? 

This is getting too heated. Seriously, good luck with your theories. This is a pot forum after all. I mean no ill will to anyone. Like you, I am passionate in what I believe in. Maybe too passionate. Thats why I have tried to stay away from these arguments. 

Your right, I'm not an engineer exactly. I'm an architect. Structural engineering is my primary job at my firm (if I still have a job in few months with the sucky economy). These are the things that i see. Aparently you see them differently.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Again... my beams are bigger. You can at least see if not read yes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Once again you prove my point ... in the picture you took from this thread you can clearly see the cut metal and the molten iron ... and there are way more steel beams in those buildings than the section of bridge that collapsed ... so you just shot yourself in the foot and as far as the other picture looks to me it from an idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about.



what... huh? said:


> What about "don't" do you not understand? I am not talking about 9/11/01. I am talking about 4/27/09. Worry not, I will get back to 9/11 and address all of these concerns then. We must first establish at least SOME facts.


*
And what part of ... this thread is about 911 don't you understand? I still answered your question in my last post. You seem to want to harp on the same points that prove nothing.

*


what... huh? said:


> *So you accept that the bridges structural steel beams were weakened by the truck fire, which then stressed and buckled under the load of the bridge?*


Rebar is a hell of a lot smaller that the fireproofed steel in the WTC ... or any skyscaper ... what part of that don't you get? ... and the point is the whole bridge didn't collapse upon itself like those towers ... the bridge only buckled where the fire was unlike the WTC were the fires were on the upper floors ... yet the buildings fell starting from the bottom. So your bridge theory is bullshit.



what... huh? said:


> That is the on-ramp from the maze to the bay bridge... this is a massive structure.


]
Yeah ... and the whole massive structure didn't collapse now did it ... so again you are doing nothing more than blowing it out.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

bryant228 said:


> Dude, you don't know what your talking about. The towers didn't come down just because of the fire, but the weight as well.


After making a statement like this I have serious doubts about you being an engineer ... it would also explain why you didn't address the 7 min video ... 



bryant228 said:


> Ok, I can't do this again. I swore that I wouldnt get into anymore debates about the twin towers. Seriously, how strong do you think metal is?


Strong enough to do what it is design to do ... 



bryant228 said:


> It can come down with the right amount of pressure from above.


If that were true ... other skyscrapers would have come crashing down yet none have ... why is that?



bryant228 said:


> For explosives to be used a demo crew would have to have been those buildings for at least a week setting up.


They had opportunity to do that through the guise of "construction" ... no one in the building would be the wiser ... since construction goes on all the time in the big cities ... 



bryant228 said:


> You just don't throw bombs in and push a button.


We already establish they didn't do this on the fly ... 



bryant228 said:


> How hard is to believe that a plan crashing into a building will bring it down.


Real hard with 3 skyscrapers design to withstand fire and plane impact can come crashing down in matter of seconds in it's own footprint only after burning for less than two hours ... no way is all that fire proof steel going to come crashing down on itself ... there is no why you can convince me of that. With all the lies the high members of government have told and all the crimes they have committed ... hell yeah it's real hard to believe the official bullshit. Especially since they refuse to have a real investigation ... now that is a dead give a way.



bryant228 said:


> And your going to have to do something better then a poll on rollitup to convince me that your the majoritity in this.


the RIU poll was one of many that have been done and all of them shows that the majority of the people don't buy the bullshit government story ... there are plenty of other polls in this thread showing we are the majority ... 



bryant228 said:


> And what profession are you in?


Work in construction for 20 years now ... and yes I've worked on skyscappers ... that's how I know that steel is sprayed with fireproofing material.



bryant228 said:


> I would really like to know. Look, like I said, your very passionate about. And for that, I have to give you respect. Too many people are not passionate about anything. So do something about. Seriously, write your local rep. Get lawyers involved. And try to put put who ever you said did this to jail. Go out and get some justice done besides hanging out on a computer all day looking stull up on the internet. Or go to school for engineering! Good luck!
> 
> I'll let you and the other guy back to your debate.


What makes you think I haven't done anything about it besides sit in front of my computer? Nuff said ...

Folks I'm getting pretty tired of these blow hards ignoring the facts ... so what I'm going to do is put up the transcript for Gage and Goyette ... to further slam them with the facts. Look for my next post.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 11, 2009)

Grow Rebel FOR THE WIN.......
.....................SWOOSH !


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

bryant228 said:


> You have no professional back ground on these matters.


Gage does ... you know that guy you won't address.



bryant228 said:


> I assure you, metal can heat up. When that happens, it weakens the integrity of the steel. That, combined with the added weight of the upper floors crashing down, it's a wonder the buildings stood so long.


No way are you an engineer ... no way ... not with this statement.

Look for my post on Gage and Goyette folks ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

*Kopi Sotiropulos:* Well first of all give us a little bit more about your background.
*Gage:* *Im an architect of twenty years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and have been studying steel frame fire proof buildings for about that long.* 
*Kim Stephens:* We ask that for clarification because as we get into this we want people to make sure that youre not just somebody with a wacky idea, you come with some science to you. What is the official reason for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers?
*Gage:* Well were told that the planes hit the buildings, and there was an explosion and a fire, and about a hour and a half later, in the case of the north tower, the buildings collapsed due to structural weakening, due to the fires. The problem is that we dont have large gradual deformations associated with collapses. And fires in high rises have never brought down a steel frame high rise building at all, ever. And what we have, unfortunately, is the evidence in the twin towers and the third skyscraper to collapse that day, which most people dont know anything about it. We have the evidence of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  In the case of building seven, it collapses straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet. Its dropping, as you can see symmetrically, smoothly, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet. Two and a half seconds. This is uncanny, theres forty thousand tons of structural steel designed to resist this collapse. 
*Kim Stephens:* So, what, a forty-seven story building?
*Gage:* Yeah, its called Building Seven, a football field away from the Twin Towers. 
*Kim Stephens:* Okay, so what were showing is left, what happened in fact, and right is controlled, where you are using or the people who made this happen, used demolition, explosive devices. 
*Gage: * Indeed, this a direct comparison. You can see that indeed, almost freefall speed, freefall acceleration, through forty thousand tons of structural steel. That is uncanny. So we have 700 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation as a result of this evidence and the evidence in the World Trade Center that is very explosive. Almost every architect and engineer weve showed this information to, agrees with us that these are controlled demolitions. If we can get them to look at the information, because obviously *the implications of a controlled demolition aredark for our country. Because that means somebody besides Al Qaeda was involved.* Because these have to be easily, three of the most highly secure buildings, outside of the Pentagon. 
*Kopi Sotiropulos:* Now if that was a controlled demolition, would there not be any evidence at the ground level of explosives within the debris thats left?
*Gage:* Indeed. And what we find down there is pools of molten iron. Several tons. 
*Kopi Sotiropulos: * What is that doing there?
*Gage:* Exactly, what is it doing there? The first responders see it, the structural engineers see it, its documented by FEMA. The melting of steel. Normal office fires is whats supposed to have brought these buildings down. Along with jet plane impacts. Jet fuel and office fires dont produce molten iron or molten steel.  It doesnt begin to melt until three thousand degrees. But what we have is, the fires only produce maybe fourteen, sixteen hundred degrees. So what produced all that molten iron? Well, it has in it the chemical evidence of a special incendiary, which is thermite, a high tech incendiary used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
*Kim Stephens: * You found that?
*Gage:* Indeed, *in all the dust throughout lower Manhattan, we have a four to six inch thick layer of this dust, and throughout it we have evidence of tiny spheres, billions of them, several tons of previously molten iron.* Well how does that happen? If you have molten ironthe by-product of thermite is molten iron and its dispersed through out all this dust. 
*Kopi Sotiropulos:* You were allowed to go in and get samples and examine it?
*Gage:* Oh, theres plenty of dust. A lot of people have this dust, and four of these samples have been sent to physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University. And they find in it, not only these spheres, which others have found too, USGS, RJ Lee, doing toxicology studies. These spheres have iron, aluminum, fluorine, manganese, very unusual elements associated only with thermite. And there are small chips of unignited thermite as well. This is very high-tech thermite, nano-thermite, its not found in a cave in Afghanistan, its produced in very sophisticated defense department contracting laboratories. 
*Kim Stephens:* Okay, well, we have an enemy here, we...the finger has been pointed to, this was the work of Al Qaeda, this was the work of Osama bin Laden, at least to get the planes all going into the buildings and into the field in Pennsylvania and into the Pentagon. Is there no way that they then could still be the enemy that placed those in the buildings first, and then did the incendiary device via a plane second?
*Gage:* Right. Well, what you have to ask is who had access to the buildings? *Did Al Qaeda have access to these highly secure buildings? Probably not.* Did they have access to sophisticated nano-thermite, where the particles are one thousand times smaller than a human hair? Probably not. Somebody else has to be investigated. *Thats why we have 700 architects and engineers demanding a real investigation*. We dont have the whole theory as to how this happened, who did it, why. We just lay out the facts, like we did last night in the Veterans Memorial Auditorium, and we demand a real investigation, and theyll find out who, why, how, et cetera. 
*Kopi Sotiropulos:* Now let me ask you, Im person X, I want to place something in one of those buildings. Where would I carry it, how big would it be? Is it that visible that I would be spotted by security? Or could I place it in one of my tooth fillings?
*Gage:* Were talking about several tons of nano-thermite and ordinary thermite. One would have to have access through security. So the security company involved for the World Trade Center should be thoroughly investigated. And it turns out to be Securi-com, Stratesec, somebody should look to see whos on the board of those companies. Some very interesting individuals turn out to be. In addition, one would have to have the cover, of say, an elevator modernization, which was in fact going on nine months prior to 9/11, so that there were workers throughout the World Trade Center, that had access to the hoistway which is immediately adjacent to the core columns and beams in the building. 
*Kim Stephens:* Youre not trying to freak out the country, but you cant help but feel a little freaked out by this. 
*Gage: * Yeah, youre getting it. 
*Kim Stephens:* Yeah. And of course this is something we want to talk with you about a whole lot more, and were out of time. But we do have a great deal of information on our website, kmph.com. Thank you very much for your time today. 



So here you are folks ... Gage's interview with a local SF station ... but the way the station was overwhelmed with people thanking them for air that interview ... so much so they had to ask the people to stop emailing because it was preventing them from checking their email for other stories ... 

So tell us where Gage is lying? Bet you can't. Tell us that he doesn't know what he's talking about and why ... bet you can't.


Okay ... I will check out Goyette's interview with the shill from PM.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

Topic: 9/11 Facts and Myths

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?
PM: Very littlethere is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.
CG: I* was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example*, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we havent seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.
PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material
CG: Ive talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and theyre not very happy about it, they released like four frames that dont really show much of anything.
PM: They dont show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance its not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.
CG: Are you telling me thats the only video?
PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect theyre still being used for various investigations.
CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), its five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?
PM: I think theres plenty of evidence out there
CG: Its not the evidence weve seen that were concerned about, its the evidence we havent seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense. The evidence is abundant
CG: Its the dog that didnt bark... We know the evidence weve seen, that doesnt cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we dont see. Its not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?
PM: *Hearst.*
CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, Oh shut up, you peons dont know what youre talking about, everythings fine, keep on moving, theres nothing to see here. Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldnt it?
PM: (does answer this question)
CG: I want to come back to the unseen evidence  the dog that didnt bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle  where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..
PM: Its not up to us
CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we dont know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. Were told who did it, weve invaded two countries in response to it, weve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?
PM: How can I answer the question?
CG: Because you dont know, we just want to see the evidence.* If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?*
PM: (Cannot answer question)
CG: Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanicssay that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.
PM: When the North Tower collapsed there was damage to Building 7. What we found out wasabout 25% of the buildings south face had been carved away from it Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower
CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true I go, oh thats interestingif thats true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 youve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesnt show that. So Im going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you dont show me the picture.
PM: We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate.
CG:* Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen cant see them.*
PM: Correct.
CG: Well, thats a fine kettle of fish, isnt it? .What did you see there that I cant see?
PM: Just what was described.
CG: Well it must be something thats dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. Youre publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, theyve done the worst possible thing, theyve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!
PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.
CG: *What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didnt know we had different classes of citizens*. You cant tell me its because its a criminal case because theyve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: .I cant answer that question.
CG: I know you cant.
PM: (is speechless).
Caller (Mike): *What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, Were alive,* what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? Were alive and well. How do you explain that one?
PM: It was one BBC report  I am saying that is false.
Caller:* How did you verify that the British story was false?*
PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes
Caller: What remains?
PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.
Caller: *The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? *Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I havent heard anything about autopsy reports.
CG: *I want to know, even if we presume youre correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? *Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uhI mean, where the hell did they get it? Youre not even talking sensibly with me.
PM: Off the top of my head, I dont know the answer to that.
CG: Of course you dont.
PM: *Ill get back to you with it*.
CG: Is that a promise?
PM: I will do my best.
CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that hes gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who hadhijacked those planes. Good, Id like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?
PM: No, actually I dont
CG: *You dont understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against * Do you think thats bizarre to ask a question like that, *do you think its conspiratorial just to want to know*?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers
PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question thats worth answering.
CG: Youve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? Youre the one with the answers, Im not. I just ask questions.
PM: A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over.
CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, weve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, were gonna spend trillions of dollars. Its not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. Whats so hard about that?
PM: The way that youre framing it is intentionally
CG: Of course it is, cause its five years later and we havent heard the answer. And you havent given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, thats it. You see, its the way Im framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.
PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.
CG: I want the question I asked. All right, thats it. Hey Daven, thanksthe Charles Goyette Show.

See how Coburn back tracked? He was blowing out like so many that push the government's bullshit story. Of course he never got back to him ... I wonder why?


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 11, 2009)

So Popular Mechanics were in on it to lol


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

natrone23 said:


> So Popular Mechanics were in on it to lol


Who's claiming that? Seems the best you nay sayer can come up with is ridicule ... not surprising since you haven't a leg ... or arms ...to stand on.


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

Groe Rebel - Why do you need to be an asshole when bryant was very polite coming here and saying what he did. He was very courtious to you and you attacked him personally several times. I think you have too much emotionally vested in this to hear ANY arguements with a clear unbiased mind. The fact that you need to continually attack people shows how weak your position is. You have not won a single point of contention here and I understand that you are frustrated. Walk away from this, you are losing more credibility and believeability with every post. Good luck!


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 11, 2009)

So... you feel you are incapable of answering that simple yes or no question?


Seems pretty straight forward to me. As I said... I will address ANY concern of yours, once we establish some common ground. Answer my very simple question, and I will answer ANY question you can muster. One at a time.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> Groe Rebel - Why do you need to be an asshole when bryant was very polite coming here and saying what he did.


I wasn't being an asshole that's just your bushwhacked interpretation ... nothing more.



olosto said:


> He was very courtious to you and you attacked him personally several times.


When did I do that?



olosto said:


> I think you have too much emotionally vested in this to hear ANY arguements with a clear unbiased mind.


No ... I've seen and heard far too much evidence that your kind can't dismiss ... it is you that needs the clear unbiased mind. 



olosto said:


> The fact that you need to continually attack people shows how weak your position is.


Says the bushwhacked that can do little to refute the evidence other than make ridiculous statements with no backing or posting info that has no bearing ... my position is only weak for people like you that haven't a factual leg to stand on.



olosto said:


> You have not won a single point of contention here and I understand that you are frustrated.


Only according to you ... and we already know how fucked in the head you are. And no I'm not frustrated ... this is great ... I love making you guys look stupid ... it's a marvelous past time.



olosto said:


> Walk away from this, you are losing more credibility and believeability with every post. Good luck!


I got a much better idea ... do like your wifey told you ... you never had credibility in this thread ... and you never will ... so if you know what's good for you ... I suggest you walk away ... because this issue and topic isn't going away no matter how many stupid comments you make.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> So... you feel you are incapable of answering that simple yes or no question?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty straight forward to me. As I said... I will address ANY concern of yours, once we establish some common ground. Answer my very simple question, and I will answer ANY question you can muster. One at a time.


I answered the question ... fire can't melt steel ... case close.


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

Have you ever seen a building demo with pools of steel at the bottom that stayed hot for weeks?

Caller: *The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after*

I wonder what melted all that steel since steel does not melt in this kind of fire, right? Thats what you said earlier, that the steel in the building could not melt because of the fire, it was not hot enough . No, that's it! I got it now! The government set up steel foundries under the wtc buildings (1&2) so that when the buildings collapsed, bam hot molten steel for weeks.. Orrrrr Then actually shut down the WTC buildings a few weekes prior with out even the workers realizing that it was closed (that gubment mind control shit, you know they have it..), loaded them up with thousands of tons of thermite. Buttoned everything back up so no one could tell and them let them goto work.. Man that gubment......


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

Get real man, this shit is so bizzare even the king of conspiracy Glenn Beck doesn't believe this crap.....


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> Have you ever seen a building demo with pools of steel at the bottom that stayed hot for weeks?
> 
> Caller: *The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after*
> 
> I wonder what melted all that steel since steel does not melt in this kind of fire, right? Thats what you said earlier, that the steel in the building could not melt because of the fire, it was not hot enough . No, that's it! I got it now! The government set up steel foundries under the wtc buildings (1&2) so that when the buildings collapsed, bam hot molten steel for weeks.. Orrrrr Then actually shut down the WTC buildings a few weekes prior with out even the workers realizing that it was closed (that gubment mind control shit, you know they have it..), loaded them up with thousands of tons of thermite. Buttoned everything back up so no one could tell and them let them goto work.. Man that gubment......


the fires don't melt steel, the THERMITE melted the steel. that is one of the most troubling things found, the pools of still molten metal beneath the rubble. the NYFD had never run into that kind of heat before, certainly more heat than a burning structure could ever produce. And when you consider the fact that the molten metal was still there after the fires had been out for weeks is only more evidence that a chemical reaction must have taken place to keep that melted for so long. How would you explain that? Do you have any evidence to show that metal melts without any known heat source?


Check this out, OH and FWIW when you light thermite it does not go "Boom" it burns with high intensity but there is no explosion. it would not take thousands of tons, you only need enough to cut through the main beams near the center of the building, maybe a couple of tons needed. You do know they blow up large buildings with the least amount of explosive possible right? Generally you only need to take out the first 2 floors and a few middle floors and the top few floors to make a building implode into its own footprint, you don't need to go and blow up every floor. All demos that do this start by blowing the base of the structure first and there are videos that show the towers doing exactly that. you see large explosions happen at the base of the building first, then a bit later they start to topple.

educate yourself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng&feature=related


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

I've actually played with thermite, have you?

So I know a little something about it. Did you not read my post when I said thousands of tons of thermite (if not for the supposed demo but nuff to leave pools of melted steel).... Walls would need to be torn open to lay the frame bare. Have you ever seen a thermite casting? Its real obvious what they are. In fact they are usually custom made for the job. There is no need for a thermite casting in WTC. It would have raised alarms not to mention the demo required to fit these castings around the steel i beams. Not to mention the piloting it would have taken to fly within a few floors of the designated target.

Educate yourself here? HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> Have you ever seen a building demo with pools of steel at the bottom that stayed hot for weeks?
> 
> Caller: *The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after*
> 
> I wonder what melted all that steel since steel does not melt in this kind of fire, right?



Ah ... the thermite ... remember that?




olosto said:


> Thats what you said earlier, that the steel in the building could not melt because of the fire, it was not hot enough .



Correct.




olosto said:


> No, that's it! I got it now! The government set up steel foundries under the wtc buildings (1&2) so that when the buildings collapsed, bam hot molten steel for weeks..



Now you're just blowing it out your ass ... again with the ridicule when you don't have any facts to support you. Yawn ... nothing new here ... 

 


olosto said:


> Orrrrr Then actually shut down the WTC buildings a few weekes prior with out even the workers realizing that it was closed



Who said that? ... Making shit up again I see.




olosto said:


> (that gubment mind control shit, you know they have it..)



Works pretty good on you. You seem to believe everything they've say on this issue ... no matter how far fetch. That's what I call excellent mind control.




olosto said:


> , loaded them up with thousands of tons of thermite. Buttoned everything back up so no one could tell and them let them goto work.. Man that gubment......


What? ... you expected them to have it out where people could see and question it?

No Drama ... thanks for putting up that video on the effects of thermite ... anyone in their right mind can see it was used on 911. The evidence is clear. And notice no one challenged Gage's statements ... why? ... because they can't!


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

One more thing a demo job is comprised of two things. I think the combat engineers will help me out and agree with me here. 1. Cutting blasts to slice thru the steel and concrete beams and reinforcements. The building does not fall here. 2. A (holy shit I forgot the term) displacing charge that starts gravity working (pushes parts of the building in such a way gravity acts upon it.). 

The dificulty of huge buildings is to make them come down in themselvs. If the steel melts from the inside out, the building does this on its own. As the building loses integrity from the inside out it caves in upon itself. Solving your problem of why they came down straight. Because it was the easiest way for them to fall given the height and weight. As soon as any piece failed, everything else failed right away. The fires basically cut the steel beams and as soon as there was a small collapse, everything went because there was no support structure left. (imo, but substantiated by fact, prove me wrong....)


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

So if large amounts of steel melted from the fire there would be pools of it as well. You cannot prove it was not hot enough. In fact i think there is plenty of evidence it did get that hot. I'll site the pools of steel. You cannot refute that using your own logic. The steel could be easily tested and probablly has been that it not of thermite orgin. Anyone that got a sample would have been able to test it and find out its orgin... Oh, ic.. The gubment again.. those bastards.. lol


Also please answer my question, have you ever worked with thermite? Do you know what a thermite casing looks like?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> I've actually played with thermite, have you?
> 
> So I know a little something about it.


based on your past posts I highly ... in more ways than one ... doubt that ... especially since you didn't address Gage's comments.



olosto said:


> Did you not read my post when I said thousands of tons of thermite (if not for the supposed demo but nuff to leave pools of melted steel).... Walls would need to be torn open to lay the frame bare.


We won't know any of that for sure until we have a real investigation now will we ... 



olosto said:


> Have you ever seen a thermite casting? Its real obvious what they are. In fact they are usually custom made for the job. There is no need for a thermite casting in WTC. It would have raised alarms not to mention the demo required to fit these castings around the steel i beams. Not to mention the piloting it would have taken to fly within a few floors of the designated target.
> 
> Educate yourself here? HAHAHAHAHA


Tell us something... what part of traces of thermite were found in the molten steel and dust around the area don't you get? What is so hard about that fact that you can't seem to comprehend?

Bwaa ha ha ha ha ... bwaa ha ha ha ... who need to edumacate themselves here?


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

*DUCK!!!! THERE IS AN ALIEN BEHIND YOU!!!!*



*lol, had ya fooled!!!*


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> based on your past posts I highly ... in more ways than one ... doubt that ... especially since you didn't address Gage's comments.


Really? What past posts are you refering to that you would know anything about me? Gage's comments? I didn't waste my time...


> We won't know any of that for sure until we have a real investigation now will we ...


Sure we will, to form pools of steel that are not from the melted steel from within the building, would require thousands of tons of thermite, period. 


> Tell us something... what part of traces of thermite were found in the molten steel and dust around the area don't you get? What is so hard about that fact that you can't seem to comprehend?




you would need a hell of alot more than traces, were talking thousands of tons of thermite. Also ever seen a thermite reacting? Big noxious clould of shit. Its brighter than fuck and smokey as hell. Didn't see that in the WTC footage...
[/quote]
Bwaa ha ha ha ha ... bwaa ha ha ha ... who need to edumacate themselves here? 
[/quote]


Bam! You've been educated!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> So if large amounts of steel melted from the fire there would be pools of it as well. You cannot prove it was not hot enough.


Sure we can ... fires only get between 1400-1600 degrees ... established scientific fact.



olosto said:


> In fact i think there is plenty of evidence it did get that hot. I'll site the pools of steel.


The thermite cause it to get hot enough to cut the steel ... that's why traces were found in the molten iron and dust. What part of that don't you get? Tell us.



olosto said:


> You cannot refute that using your own logic. The steel could be easily tested and probablly has been that it not of thermite orgin.


Wrong again ... traces of thermite were found ... how many times do I have to state this before it sinks in ... 



olosto said:


> Anyone that got a sample would have been able to test it and find out its orgin... Oh, ic.. The gubment again.. those bastards.. lol


If you bushwhacked bothered to look at the video with the evidence or read the transcript you would know sample were taken and the presence of thermite was confirmed. What part of that don't you get? Tell us ...




olosto said:


> Also please answer my question, have you ever worked with thermite? Do you know what a thermite casing looks like?


I don't need to work with thermite to understand the concept that traces were found at the site. What part of that don't you understand? Tell us.



olosto said:


> So if large amounts of steel melted from the fire there would be pools of it as well.


Once again ... you make yourself look stupid ... there were tons on molten steel ... what part of that don't you get?


> *Gage:* Indeed, *in all the dust throughout lower Manhattan, we have a four to six inch thick layer of this dust, and throughout it we have evidence of tiny spheres, billions of them, several tons of previously molten iron ... *the by-product of thermite is molten iron and its dispersed through out all this dust.





olosto said:


> You cannot prove it was not hot enough.


already did ... scientific fact that fire get between 1400 and 1600 degrees ... not hot enough to do anything to fireproofed steel.



olosto said:


> In fact i think there is plenty of evidence it did get that hot.


ah yeah ... because of the thermite ... 



olosto said:


> I'll site the pools of steel. You cannot refute that using your own logic. The steel could be easily tested and probablly has been that it not of thermite orgin.


Well we've already proven you were blowing it out your ass on this point.



olosto said:


> Anyone that got a sample would have been able to test it and find out its orgin... Oh, ic.. The gubment again.. those bastards.. lol


LOL how do you explain the thermite in the samples ... bwaa ha ha ha ... why don't you find a silly tin hat picture to put up ... might make you feel better ... might.




olosto said:


> Also please answer my question, have you ever worked with thermite? Do you know what a thermite casing looks like?


I don't need to ... the evidence is clear.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> Really? What past posts are you refering to that you would know anything about me? Gage's comments? I didn't waste my time...


Making yourself look stupid ... yeah ... I can see why you wouldn't want to do that ... can't dispute the facts ... why bother ... 




olosto said:


> Sure we will, to form pools of steel that are not from the melted steel from within the building, would require thousands of tons of thermite, period.


So what ... the fact that traces were found shows thermite was used ... the amount doesn't matter at this point in time. That would have to be brought out in a real investigation.





olosto said:


> you would need a hell of alot more than traces, were talking thousands of tons of thermite.



Say the bushwhacked with no credibility ... 




olosto said:


> Also ever seen a thermite reacting?



Yep ... 




olosto said:


> Big noxious clould of shit. Its brighter than fuck and smokey as hell. Didn't see that in the WTC footage...


You need to go look at the videos again ... on second thought ignore them like everything else ... it will only prove how foolish you are.



olosto said:


> Bam! You've been educated!


Bam you been made a fool of again


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> *DUCK!!!! THERE IS AN ALIEN BEHIND YOU!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> *lol, had ya fooled!!!*


He told me to tell say you give him just cause to believe there is no intelligent life on this planet. ....hahaha ...
he really said that too.


----------



## bryant228 (Jun 11, 2009)

(Wow, I had to come back and edit my post. You guys are really going at. I'm just responding to our conversation Grow rebel.)

Dude! Come on! I'm trying to let this go. I havnt followed this for so long I had to google Richard Gage. Serioulsy, I had no idea who he is. No one I know really talks about this anymore. And i work with a bunch of architects and engineers. We've all debated this. And I have to stick with what I believe, just like everyone else I know. He's not showing me anything new. It's the same as was it was 5 years ago. He's Just running around saying he's an architect. But I have no idea what his credentials are. I skimmed over a few things. Look, his credentials are better then mine. But I bet he's in the same boat as alot of us are. It doesnt look like he's even practicing anymore. Do you have any idea how much he's making now? You get paid to go on talk shows and radio shows. I bet he takes donations on this website. But I bet he's out of work, like alot of us are. Or maybe he has work from all this publicity. At that rate, he's looking pretty smart now. My company has taken it's hits as well. And no, I don't own my own company. 

Look, I work in a small town. I do light commercial and residential work. No, I don't work on skyscrappers. The tallest building I did was 4 stories, and that was years ago. But I know it's possible for buildings to collapse. Nothing like that has ever happened, nothing. Theres nothing to compare it to, except what?.......Demolition. And I'm not going to come on here and spit out a bunch of engineering terms. I think the media has played up the fires too much. They did play a part in it. One of many parts. Do you understand loads? I'm not trying to be smart, but do you? Static load and dynamic load? I don't want to get into the thermite present at the scence, the liquid metal. I should say I can't, I'm done. Like I said, I've done this before, and it goes no where. I'm just very passionate in what I believe in too. And I should have known better then to come in here and post.

I've been doing this for 20 years too brother. From framing houses with my uncle, to setting steel with my coisins company. My dad had a small excavating buisness. I come from a regular working class family. I worked my way all through school, And I have massive student loans still. My wife had two jobs at one point while I finished up my masters. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I know what I'm talking about, and so do you. What the hell does that say? No wonder you hate me so much, your a contractor! I got a chuckle out of that. You and I might have more in common then you think. We're both pot heads for christs sake! And I'm stoned right now. Look, I've worked in the field, and had to work around someones fuck up as well. I've paid my dues.

But back to the issue. The evidence does not add up to me, sorry. But again, good luck. I mean no ill will to you. I'll see you around.


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> He told me to tell say you give him just cause to believe there is no intelligent life on this planet. ....hahaha ...
> he really said that too.


And wait he was talking to you and saying this, BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA





> Once again ... you make yourself look stupid ... there were tons on molten steel ... what part of that don't you get?


 
If it was thermite that did it in would the pools be of iron and not steel????



> the by-product of thermite is molten iron and it&#8217;s dispersed through out all this dust.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 11, 2009)

Olosto...READ THIS link 100 times so that you can understand where he is coming from. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Thats the science behind the FACT that there was THERMITE found in ALL the test samples. How the FUCK did the thermite get there? Can it be explained by anyone? How come 4 different sources all came to the same conclusion..THERMITE was found in all the samples. How? NIST did not even look for explosives when they did their goverment sponsored investigation, how can this be? 

Now read this link also. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

I got about 20 more links like that all from different sources that found FUCKING THERMITE in the ashes of the buildings.

And then what do you make of news reports that are reporting the collapse of building #7 2 0 minutes before it happened? Not just 1 major news source, but 2? any idea how these reporters were able to see into the future? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s


----------



## olosto (Jun 11, 2009)

Easy.. the materials for thermite were readily available and could have in trace amount ignited. Hell the plane consisted of 2 major ingredients, alum and heat. The building girders had rust. There is your thermite....


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 11, 2009)

So... am I to take it that you both decline to answer the yes or no question?

Or are you sticking with the "The folds in that picture aren't folds... a wisp of cloud perhaps." theory?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 11, 2009)

olosto said:


> And wait he was talking to you and saying this, BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Why did he keep pointing at your avatar? He would like to know if you would let him do an anal probe .... he said never mind ... he'll just do it while you are asleep.




olosto said:


> Easy.. the materials for thermite were readily available and could have in trace amount ignited.


Available from where? Link source? ... you must be out your mind if you think we are stupid enough to accept you on your no credibility word ... because we won't ... 



olosto said:


> Hell the plane consisted of 2 major ingredients, alum and heat. The building girders had rust. There is your thermite....


See folks another stupid no link source backed comment ... we are expected to take him at his word ... not.



olosto said:


> If it was thermite that did it in would the pools be of iron and not steel????


Being stupid again ... so I won't even bother.




olosto said:


> Easy.. the materials for thermite were readily available and could have in trace amount ignited. Hell the plane consisted of 2 major ingredients, alum and heat. The building girders had rust. There is your thermite....


Source? Link? ... I thought so ... you have none ... we simply must accept what you say as fact ... too bad that's not going to happen ... come back when you have some credible source to back your bullshit. ... in the mean time this will be another bushwhacker blowing it out his ass post. Nuff said.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 12, 2009)

I love in that interview with PM how the interviewer asks rhetorical questions to which PM does not respond(nor should they) and the interviewer makes it look like PM is dumbfounded.

Pretty sad.


----------



## olosto (Jun 12, 2009)

Yea, it is pretty sad. Now Growrebel wants to argue that planes are not made out of aluminum.. Fuck, the airline builders were in on it too!!


----------



## olosto (Jun 12, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Why did he keep pointing at your avatar? He would like to know if you would let him do an anal probe .... he said never mind ... he'll just do it while you are asleep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Then prove me wrong. Prove that there was not rust n the girders. Prove to me that the planes that hit were not made out of aluminum. Prove to me that there was no fire that could have ignited the alum and rust to produce thermite, in trace amounts like what was found.




And you still have not answered why the pools of metal were steel and not iron...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 12, 2009)

olosto said:


> Then prove me wrong.


Already have ... and more than once ... next.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 12, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I love in that interview with PM how the interviewer asks rhetorical questions to which PM does not respond(nor should they) and the interviewer makes it look like PM is dumbfounded.
> 
> Pretty sad.


What part of how they knew they had the DNA of the hijackers is not a rhetorical question ... PM has been thoroughly debunked ... and yeah ... those that believe PM bullshit are pretty sad. Next.


----------



## olosto (Jun 12, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Already have ... and more than once ... next.


Really?

Just answer the questions if science is on your side.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 12, 2009)

Hey olosto, the aluminum and rust need to be very well mixed, so unless the rust and aluminum were vaporized, then reconstructed back together again, then yes I guess you could say it was thermite being made. unfortunately we live in the real world where those things do not happen and there goes your little theory that could not even stand up to kindergarten logic. Sorry no aluminum plane mixed with rust from the girders, the girders are sprayed with a heat barrier anyway so there would not be any rust anyway. I can probably come up with 10 different explanations that blow your airplane and rust mixed together then ignited as thermite theory right out of the forum. Your gonna have to come up with some science here son, not fairy tales.

Oh and the pools of metal are just that, pools of metal, I don't think anyone distinguished whether it was steel or iron, not much difference anyway composition wise since steel IS iron along with carbon.


----------



## olosto (Jun 12, 2009)

So there could not have been vaporization of bothin a close proximity say like when the jet slammed into the girders? You sure about that? Im sure a shit load of stuff vaporized, and I'll site my previous arguement of impact friction, as in the plane hit so fucking hard lots of shit was vaporized in an instant. This happens with smaller explosives why do you not think it could happen with an entire jet, imparting huge forces on a mostly stationary object?


----------



## olosto (Jun 12, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Hey olosto, the aluminum and rust need to be very well mixed, so unless the rust and aluminum were vaporized, then reconstructed back together again, then yes I guess you could say it was thermite being made. unfortunately we live in the real world where those things do not happen and there goes your little theory that could not even stand up to kindergarten logic. Sorry no aluminum plane mixed with rust from the girders, the girders are sprayed with a heat barrier anyway so there would not be any rust anyway. I can probably come up with 10 different explanations that blow your airplane and rust mixed together then ignited as thermite theory right out of the forum. Your gonna have to come up with some science here son, not fairy tales.
> 
> Oh and the pools of metal are just that, pools of metal, I don't think anyone distinguished whether it was steel or iron, not much difference anyway composition wise since steel IS iron along with carbon.


Im just using your own logic against you, you cannot prove it didn't happen... Also traces of thermite dust were found you said not piles of thermite dust. Trace amounts that can be logically explained given the fires..


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 12, 2009)

Heres Proof it didn't happen..........







theres an engine that didn't vaporize, lets see if there is anything else







Oh shit thats a whole bunch of parts that didn't vaporize, doesn't look like it melted from the huge amount of friction either







WOW thats parts of the fuselage there, pretty much blows your theory and proves it wrong. i can go on since you like to be proven wrong so much.






Holy Shit, rubber vaporizes at a much lower temp than aluminum, but yet this survived almost wholly intact, nope nothing vaporized there.







Oh damn a whole container full, doesn't look like anything turned to vapor there, must not have happened.

I got 50 more pics, each one proves you wrong. 

Of course they did not find any piles of thermite, the buildings blew the fuck up, do you not have any grasp of physics at all Olosto? How would you find a specific pile of anything?

Your not using my own logic against me, your just not using any logic at all, your theories are scientifically unsound and wholly irrational.


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 13, 2009)

I like to check in here once and while. Very entertaining. Keep up the good work Grow Rebel! NoDrama, nice pics. 
Now I think I'm going to ignor olosto because it seems he hasn't produced any source or fact for his arguments and while I commend GrowRebel for giving everyone a fair shake I feel it's a waste of my own time hitting this thread and makes me think that's all his intentions are.
If I was so sure on the official story and was willing to come here and disscus with GROWREBEL I sure as fuck would have some links/sources etc.
Peace all!!!!


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 13, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I answered the question ... fire can't melt steel ... case close.


That was not my question senior strawman. Were it my question that would be a stupid answer. I am not sure how you think steel is made or molded, but it involves fire. The question you seem to be attempting to answer, is will a "normal" fire "melt" steel. One of the things I am trying to demonstrate is that very flaw in logic. To melt, means to change states from solid to liquid. I am not asking if "normal" fire "melts" steel. I am asking if "normal" fire will weaken steel to the point where it bends and folds under oppressive weight.

I am not even asking that actually... I have clearly demonstrated that. What I am asking is if you are capable of admitting that fact, or do you have another reasonable explanation for the weakening and buckling of those beams in that bridge which happened to coincide with the "normal" fire underneath it?

Again... I bolded my question, I don't know why you would change it... my question was... 



what... huh? said:


> *So you accept that the bridges structural steel beams were weakened by the truck fire, which then stressed and buckled under the load of the bridge?*


If your answer is no, then can you provide another feasible explanation for the very clearly weakened and folded i-beams in that photo resulting from a single vehicle accident? 



No Drama...

3 pages ago you were insisting that a janitor, and others HEARD explosions which to you seemed to be a significant indication that explosives were used. NOW it is thermite. Show me large demo.... phuck it... show me SMALL controlled demo with thermite. Operative word there being "controlled".

Being a pilot... again... you do NOT correct your friend on HIS erroneous information... and IMPLY that he is STILL correct in trying to correct ME on pilot deviation without addressing the FACTS which I have lain out... facts that, if you are a pilot, you either know to be true or can find out with a phone call if you are just a weekend joy rider.

You are intellectually dishonest. I seek the truth in my debates unless devils advocacy is noted. You seek to make yourself right by ignoring facts, and withholding information that you find damaging to your case. I believe in full disclosure. You don't have to... but I will call it when I see it.

So, you agree then, by your current line of argument, that thermite is all that could have been used, otherwise we would have all born witness to detonation... yes?


So make up your mind how you think it was done, and I will argue it...

because C4 don't burn... but it goes boom pretty good...
and thermite burns. 

Awaiting your reply.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 13, 2009)

Lastly... as to your entire line of pictures of airplane parts evidence (which btw grow rebel insists were planted)...

If I found un-scorched building debris on the street with those plane parts, would that mean that the building didn't burn?

It is known as a logical non-sequiter.



*edit... and WHAT FKUCKING FIREMAN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?






I mean... I can't fix hallucinating. There is an image of bent, buckled, pancaked steel i-beam (1 of 6... 5 obscured from angle) from a single vehicle accident.


I mean... lemme get out the fat crayons...

Look STRAIGHT UP from the front guy on the left's head until you find pancaked beam.



C'mon... FFS... I put a little box around it and everything.


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 13, 2009)

I know bone is alot different than steel but I've broken a few in my day and they all make a explosive cracking sound when they break no explosives needed. I would suspect and I'm just throwing this out there that if thermite cut the beams (some of the pics show at a 45 degree angle) there would be some type of stress related noise.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 13, 2009)

Here is the thing... if you both continue to be hypocritical and illogical, it is fruitless to engage you. If you refuse to accept contradictory evidence despite it's blatant and obvious existence... you are heretics. 

You are like a man standing in a stream trying to keep his feet dry with a broom.

You are furious, and devoted. You are dedicated and pugnacious. You are arrogant. You are also quite mad. 


Keep sweeping. It seems to make you happy. Until I am addressed rationally... I will not continue.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 13, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> I know bone is alot different than steel but I've broken a few in my day and they all make a explosive cracking sound when they break no explosives needed. I would suspect and I'm just throwing this out there that if thermite cut the beams (some of the pics show at a 45 degree angle) there would be some type of stress related noise.



But of course 30 stories collapsing on one wouldn't.


According to the Tweedledee's, there were explosions before the planes hit. They just can't seem to make it all work without combining high improbabilities.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 13, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> I like to check in here once and while. Very entertaining. Keep up the good work Grow Rebel! NoDrama, nice pics.


 Thanks mexi ... you prove that there is indeed a home viewing audience ... and it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without HW, olosto, natone, and the rest of the bushwhacked clan ... let give them a hand again ladies and gentlemen ... 
NoDrama is very good at finding pictures ... No ... I wonder if you can find the picture of the construction of the center beams ... you can see the start of them in the picture I posted of the construction ... I've been looking for this picture ... it's shows the masive center of the building with the beams ... know what I speak of?




mexiblunt said:


> Now I think I'm going to ignor olosto because it seems he hasn't produced any source or fact for his arguments


Yes I know ... but that's how delusional the bushwhacked are ... they are so used to fauxnews that they actually believe that all they have to do is make a statement ... doesn't matter how ridiculous ... with no source backing ... they truly believe they are making a valid argument ... but that shit don't fly here ... on corporate news maybe ... but not here ... they have a real problem comprehending that.



mexiblunt said:


> If I was so sure on the official story and was willing to come here and disscus with GROWREBEL I sure as fuck would have some links/sources etc.
> Peace all!!!!


You got that right ... don't come on this thread like some of these bushwhacked blowing it out their ass as expect to go unchallenged ... It makes it so easy to show their stupidity ... keep checking in. 



what... huh? said:


> That was not my question senior strawman. Were it my question that would be a stupid answer. I am not sure how you think steel is made or molded, but it involves fire.


Yeah ... a 3000 degree heat ...which an office fire or jet plane fuel can't produce ... 



what... huh? said:


> The question you seem to be attempting to answer, is will a "normal" fire "melt" steel. One of the things I am trying to demonstrate is that very flaw in logic.


Only to the bushwhacked minded ... to people that can comprehend facts and science ... it's not flawed logic at all.



what... huh? said:


> To melt, means to change states from solid to liquid. I am not asking if "normal" fire "melts" steel. I am asking if "normal" fire will weaken steel to the point where it bends and folds under oppressive weight.


Save the bullshit play on words ... that "fire" was not hot enough to produce the damage that was done ... not without the help of thermite. There is no way you can talk around that fact no matter how hard you try.

 


what... huh? said:


> I am not even asking that actually... I have clearly demonstrated that.


The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are capable of blowing shit out your ass ... nothing more.



what... huh? said:


> What I am asking is if you are capable of admitting that fact, or do you have another reasonable explanation for the weakening and buckling of those beams in that bridge which happened to coincide with the "normal" fire underneath it?


Been there done that ... rebar is no where near the thickness or strength of fireproofed steel ... it is used to reinforce the concrete ... and the fact that the entire bridge didn't collapse proves that a gas fire can't bring down an entire fireproofed skyscraper in it's own footprint in a matter of seconds ... not without help ... It's not my problem that you can't comprehend a simple concept and scientific fact.



what... huh? said:


> Again... I bolded my question, I don't know why you would change it... my question was...
> *So you accept that the bridges structural steel beams were weakened by the truck fire, which then stressed and buckled under the load of the bridge?*
> If your answer is no, then can you provide another feasible explanation for the very clearly weakened and folded i-beams in that photo resulting from a single vehicle accident?


Been there ... again ... done that ... again ... next.



what... huh? said:


> Lastly... as to your entire line of pictures of airplane parts evidence (which btw grow rebel insists were planted)...


Once again you are blowing it out your ass ... show us where I insisted the parts were planted ... now watch folks ... he will come back with nothing but his thumb up his ass ... watch now.



what... huh? said:


> If I found un-scorched building debris on the street with those plane parts, would that mean that the building didn't burn?
> 
> It is known as a logical non-sequiter.


With a question like that I can legally call you an idiot.




what... huh? said:


> I mean... I can't fix hallucinating. There is an image of bent, buckled, pancaked steel i-beam (1 of 6... 5 obscured from angle) from a single vehicle accident.


Your bridge bullshit doesn't cut it ... different construction ... no where near the damage ... if you want continue to look stupid with this knock yourself out.



what... huh? said:


> Here is the thing... if you both continue to be hypocritical and illogical, it is fruitless to engage you. If you refuse to accept contradictory evidence despite it's blatant and obvious existence... you are heretics.


No if you continue to push bullshit that is easily discredited your going to meet with the same response ... your fucked in the head. Period.



what... huh? said:


> You are like a man standing in a stream trying to keep his feet dry with a broom.


And you are like a woman that thinks she's invisible ... yet everyone can see her.



what... huh? said:


> You are furious, and devoted. You are dedicated and pugnacious. You are arrogant. You are also quite mad.


And you are too stupid to accept the obvious ... so what else is new?




what... huh? said:


> Keep sweeping. It seems to make you happy. Until I am addressed rationally... I will not continue.


Keep making up bullshit no one but a bushwhacked mind will buy if it makes you happy ... I will simply continue to show our home viewing audience how stupid and desperate you are. Lots of fun.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 13, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Yeah ... a 3000 degree heat ...which an office fire or jet plane fuel can't produce ...



Yes... and nobody is claiming that the steel was melted.




GrowRebel said:


> Only to the bushwhacked minded ... to people that can comprehend facts and science ... it's not flawed logic at all.


It is the convenient use of a misnomer. Don't get mad at me because you either don't understand what melt means, or you are incapable of understanding that metals weaken under heat.



GrowRebel said:


> Save the bullshit play on words ... that "fire" was not hot enough to produce the damage that was done ... not without the help of thermite. There is no way you can talk around that fact no matter how hard you try.


 
 I am not playing with words, I am using them correctly, and demonstrating your inappropriate use of them, by which your "scientific facts" are based on. You do not understand the terms being used. I am attempting to make them clear.

You don't believe in this.






They call it fatigue. 




GrowRebel said:


> Been there done that ... rebar is no where near the thickness or strength of fireproofed steel ... it is used to reinforce the concrete ... and the fact that the entire bridge didn't collapse proves that a gas fire can't bring down an entire fireproofed skyscraper in it's own footprint in a matter of seconds ... not without help ... It's not my problem that you can't comprehend a simple concept and scientific fact.


I am not asking you about rebar. See "fat crayon writing"




GrowRebel said:


> Once again you are blowing it out your ass ... show us where I insisted the parts were planted ... now watch folks ... he will come back with nothing but his thumb up his ass ... watch now.


I said there were all kinds of sh1t in the streets... including a jet engine... and you asked for a source... to which I replied...




what... huh? said:


> You weren't watching the news live that day I guess.


To which you replied...



GrowRebel said:


> Oh you mean the corporate news that lied about this event from the start?



What did I miss there? Didn't seem like a real subtle post.



GrowRebel said:


> Your bridge bullshit doesn't cut it ... different construction ... no where near the damage ... if you want continue to look stupid with this knock yourself out.


For the fifth time, whether you understand it or not... I am not asking you to equate this event to 9/11. I am trying to determine if you are rational... or irrational. Now... if you deny the fatigue of steel... as that seems to be your position... on that bridge, then please explain the bent squished metal in the fat crayon post.


----------



## motorboater (Jun 13, 2009)

this thread is too funny. 51 pages of GrowRebel argument, which consists of nothing more than calling people "bushwhacked" and insulting them.

cannabis tends to worsen the effects of paranoid schizophrenia.

ad hominem eh?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 13, 2009)

motorboater said:


> this thread is too funny. 51 pages of GrowRebel argument, which consists of nothing more than calling people "bushwhacked" and insulting them.
> 
> cannabis tends to worsen the effects of paranoid schizophrenia.
> 
> ad hominem eh?


Join the club then bushwhacked ... there a bit more in this thread other than insults ... but someone with your "bushwhacked" mind wouldn't be able to see that ... if fact you people go out of you way to avoid any facts ... nothing new here ... move along. And cannabis tends to heighten your perception of truth ... so I take it you don't smoke.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 13, 2009)

*Notes the distraction only makes the silence louder.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 13, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> No Drama...
> 
> 3 pages ago you were insisting that a janitor, and others HEARD explosions which to you seemed to be a significant indication that explosives were used. NOW it is thermite. Show me large demo.... phuck it... show me SMALL controlled demo with thermite. Operative word there being "controlled".
> 
> ...



I don't really see how you can get after me for not scolding Growrebel on his misinformed airliner procedures when you yourself say nothing about Olosto and his "Theories" that defy all laws of physics, Am I to conclude that you too are a proponent of the plane flew really fast into the building that it vaporized aluminum and rust from steel and created thermite theory? It matters not if a pilot can go off course in a private plane and not get shot down. Guess what? terrorists do not take over small private planes, thats why the FAA has had special procedures for airliners since the Iran hijackings back in the 70's, no Ifs ands or buts, EVERY COMMERCIAL AIRLINER has to follow the rules. Yeah your right, a small private single engine aircraft CAN go do some flying without a flight plan being submitted, but an airliner certainly cannot. The last time I checked and absolutley NO ONE refutes the fact that they were airliners that flew into the towers.n Hell i watched the second one fly right into the building, and according to good ole former president Bush, he watched the first plane fly into the building while no one else did, and he saw it on TV...here he even admits it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60 its a big ass LIE. Now don't try to defend him because hes Dim Witted, he knows he is lying.

as far as how the towers were constructed, well here are some pics 








Everything is Steel here, no concrete has been poured yet, See all the massive beams on the left side? thats the core.






Even the outside walls are constructed of huge steel meshed beams, you can see the core beams sticking out of the decking here.






Another good pic showing the core and surrounding mesh of interconnected steel beams. Thats a whole lotta metal there, so much that it should easily be able to dissipate heat from an office fire and even a few minutes of fuel fire





The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with controlled demolition  and even then its very difficult. Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when toppling over falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? strong evidence for an inside job.
No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors  and intact steel support columns , the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The paradox, is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses. These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission.
With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling. How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing  and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon.
Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings.
Steel supports were partly evaporated, but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel  and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location.
Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite. Buildings not felled by explosives have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck.
Now think about this, the airplane is lightweight, it has to be to be able to fly. Its made of some of the lightest metals known to man, aluminum and titanium and magnesium. Now theres some plastic and other crap too, but for the majority its mostly aluminum, engines are titanium and the wheels are usually magnesium. Now probably 60% is aluminum and the towers are made of mostly steel, when did aluminum become so damned hard that it can sever huge steel beams in the core? it just makes no sense, i can see it knocking down the outer wall from all the momentum, but once it got to the core there is so much steel there that I doubt it made much of a dent, it certainly did not go all the way through thats pretty obvious from what we all saw with our own eyes, so how does damage to 1% of the building really casue it to fall, after all they are designed to be hit by airplanes, thats taken into consideration when they are being built. Also you do realize that these buildings have fire sprinkler systems correct? For some reason they didn't work. guess what? those big buildings have there systems inspected and tested every month by qualified professionals, if anything on a fire alarm isn't working it sends a trouble signal and gets repaired pronto. For some reason none of the systems worked in any of the buildings?

if the fire was so hot, why is this woman (Edna Clinton) able to bear the heat and wave at us? if it were really hot enough to cause steel to bend and deform how is she able to withstand it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s

This video is VERY hard to refute, she must be a "SuperWoman" or something to just stand there in the 5000F heat and wave at us? How is that explained away?


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 13, 2009)

I am of the opinion that there was a sh1tload of rust and aluminum in that building, and when it collapsed on itself there was pulverization on a monolithic scale.

As to whether you are a commercial or private plane, well that depends on what your transponder says. The transponders being switched off were the second things to happen... after killing the pilots.

They do not send jets after a NON COMMUNICATING, NON TRANSPONDING PLANE unless it behaves erratically or enters restricted airspace... which, btw, is sort of the point of restricted airspace. (which again... is not around the pentagon or DCA).

Once they knew they had at least 3 go rogue, they did scramble.

Now, please answer my simple yes or no question before I continue to address any more of yours.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 13, 2009)

LOL once they knew they went rogue, LOL that means after they hit their targets of course. Let me answer your question about the bridge, yes its true that a very hot fire burning long enough can cause metal to soften as it were. but here is the problem... read on...

A tanker truck carrying approximately 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline caught on fire on the Interstate 80/880 interchange in Oakland, California early Sunday morning around 3:40 AM. The fire resulted in the collapse of at least two sections of bridges at the interchange, including one carrying I-580. The multi-level freeway interchange known as the MacArthur Maze connects the Bay Bridge (Interstate 80) to Interstates 580, 880, and 980 and California State Highway 24, and as such it connects several major cities in California, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley.
The driver, James Mosqueda, 51, of Woodland, California, escaped from his truck before the fire. He was the only person reported to be hurt, suffering second-degree burns. No other vehicles were involved in the crash.
The driver was believed to be speeding, resulting in a loss of control of the truck, causing it to flip over and subsequently burst into flames. As the truck was traveling on the interchange of I-80 eastbound to I-880 southbound near the San Francisco Bay Bridge, it is speculated to have hit a guard rail or column during a turn. Shortly thereafter, it exploded into a fire that lasted *SEVERAL HOURS*. 



Emphasis added to the several hours of burning Unleaded gasoline fuel, compared to the several minutes of burning fuel in the towers and in the case of WTC #7 no hydrocarbon based fuel at all.


Your example does not lend much creedence to explain anything about the towers since the circumstances and the structure are nothing alike. But yeah I can agree with you that given hours of a hot intense flame metal can soften enough to deform them. In the WTC attacks the flames never persisted for long enough, nor were intense enough to cause Many many multiple HUGE steel beams to all fail at once, and then there is the free fall factor that is impossible in that scenario also.


Hey what ...Huh? do you believe that we got into the Vietnam war becasue they fired upon us in the gulf of tonkin too, or do you suppose that we just made it all up so we could get into the war in the first place?


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> LOL once they knew they went rogue, LOL that means after they hit their targets of course. Let me answer your question about the bridge, yes its true that a very hot fire burning long enough can cause metal to soften as it were. but here is the problem... read on...
> 
> A tanker truck carrying approximately 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline caught on fire on the Interstate 80/880 interchange in Oakland, California early Sunday morning around 3:40 AM. The fire resulted in the collapse of at least two sections of bridges at the interchange, including one carrying I-580. The multi-level freeway interchange known as the MacArthur Maze connects the Bay Bridge (Interstate 80) to Interstates 580, 880, and 980 and California State Highway 24, and as such it connects several major cities in California, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley.
> The driver, James Mosqueda, 51, of Woodland, California, escaped from his truck before the fire. He was the only person reported to be hurt, suffering second-degree burns. No other vehicles were involved in the crash.
> ...


Great. That is awesome. Thank you for answering the question. Odd that it took almost 10 pages, asking the same question over and over again don't you think?

First of all... to address your "SEVERAL HOURS" emPHAsis.

"The single-vehicle crash occurred on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail at 3:41 a.m."

"Firefighters immediately noticed the upper connector ramp was buckling and seven minutes after they arrived -- at 4:02 a.m. -- it collapsed, Price said."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

So let's first knock those several hours down to a much more respectable 21 minutes.

Then let us marry that fact with a couple of others, presuming you do not object.

8600 gallons of gasoline on an empty roadway heated to the point of self-destruction, 6 i-beams in an open air fire in 21 minutes. Road seems less damaged than those big assed beams... with a lot of impact too. Looks like it just slid off... probably off all that gooey rebar grow was talkin about...

"Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat -- and that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports."

Structural steel (as in multiple story large steel structures) looses half of its rigidity at 1000F (that's about 538C).
Source: The Structural Engineer. "Stainless steel in fire" p77. The Institute of Structural Engineers' library. (Sorry... it's a book. I actually asked a structural engineer. He showed me the equation... and I realized pretty instantly why I am not an engineer. I did not discuss 9/11 with him, because frankly the knowledge that I wasted this much time doing this would damage my image.)

As opposed to 5 floors of combustibles and fire from more than 20,000 lbs of jet fuel which burned for 56 minutes, and 102 minutes respectively, not to mention collisions of about 200,000 lbs (half max takeoff weight, there may be more accurate information out there but this seemed ok to throw around inconsequentially) at several hundred mph. 


I am not making the great leap yet... don't get excited... I am just trying to find some common ground... a pool of facts that we can agree on. Let me know where we are so far, and if you want to jump ahead and ask me a question I will answer it, unless it requires this little foundation I am building before throwing up the walls. 

Frankly, I'd rather go back to aviation. NORDO SOP. Was VFR like a mofakka. You need to bone up mang. Gotta know NORDO procedures cold. You don't wanna be up there fishing out your flight manual deaf. 

If you want to let that argument go so we can get to the meat I'll understand. 

If you take umbrage with ANYTHING I have stated as fact above... please address that first.




NoDrama said:


> Hey what ...Huh? do you believe that we got into the Vietnam war becasue they fired upon us in the gulf of tonkin too, or do you suppose that we just made it all up so we could get into the war in the first place?


Man... remember when an attack on a US vessel was a reason to go to war? Wikipied for your protection

I dunno... do you think the Jews really did it? What about alien involvement? Tell ya what... I won't invent what you think, and you don't contrive what I think. Fair enough?

Side note... I need to know if I can reference NIST as a credible source, or if you will also not use NIST or sources which site NIST for that specific information? As I see it, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are not influential of the evidence itself. Not referencing NIST is going to get difficult... for both of us.

Last thing I have to address... you are absolutely correct to point out that I did not address the Ostlo. I realized that I was just focusing on what I was saying and casually observing him... as were you. While I didn't think he was correct as to how aluminum and iron oxide powder came to be... I felt he was on the right track... Point taken. 



(Damn though Grow... it looks like your more reasonable friend directly contradicts your earlier avoidance of reality. I betcha he got bushwacked... whaddaya think? You probably just witnessed some sort of bushwack jedi mind trick... from here on out... I am going to refer to this obvious telepathic ploy of mine as "fact finding"... just so you know what I really mean...)


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

Ok... wtf?













I clearly see the same UFO in both of these pictures. FFS PEOPLE!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!




Sponsored by: Wife of what... huh?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Frankly, I'd rather go back to aviation. NORDO SOP. Was VFR like a mofakka. You need to bone up mang. Gotta know NORDO procedures cold. You don't wanna be up there fishing out your flight manual deaf.



Oh jeezus that made me laugh. LMFAO!



You gotta know 1 thing, the fires were only fed by the fuel for a few minutes, not 56 and 102 respectively. The fuel burned off FAR sooner than that, in fact 95% was used up in the original
crash and explosion, it did not continue to burn. You aren't really trying to make the argument that fuel burns forever right? The truck you have as an example never blew up, the fuel burned for hours and hours as it was just sitting there under the bridge. Since the circumstances are completely different we can't really use the truck accident as precedent for what happened to the towers. And it does NOTHING to explain WTC #7.

As far as explosions go, here is proof in thuis video I dug up. you hear the explosions go off. I did not watch the whole thing so I am not sure what all is covered, but you sure can hear the explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Just watch the first minute and let me know what you think.

FWIW when demo charges go boom, they don't make a big hollywood explosion, they make a very defined fast loud crack sound, no fire involved like you see in hollywood.


My biggest question for you right now is why? There have been other high rises tht have burned for 30 hours with flames much more intense than those of the WTC. I gave you pictures of these " Towering Infernos". Yet these buildings after burning for 15 times longer than WTC and completely gutting the building so that the only thing left is the steel. Yet these buildings did not fall, why? Did the people who built the Trade center buildings do a bad job? I mean were the engineers who designed them have a bad design that could not withstand some smaller fires? And for the most part those are smaller fires, the amount of smoke has nothing to do with it, ever seen a hay bale burn...shitloads of smoke, looks like a house was on fire.

Then we have WTC building # 7. by all accounts it should never have fallen, there were no large fires, the interior of the building was completely intact, therefore the core was unharmed. Sure there was a gash in the facade, but that did not affect its integrity at all, you could remove every wall in the building and it would not fall because these buildings are supported by the CORE of the building...massive multiple steel columns that could withstand a 800C fire for weeks and not deform. How? well because metal conducts heat, and it will conduct it over its whole area, so 1 small fire affecting 1 beam does not make 500 feet of the beam soften and melt. the beam is able to conduct that heat away from the point of the fire. 

Its almost believable that the towers fell because of the planes, they did a good job of making that one Almost legit. good enough for the masses of sheep anyway. But they really fucked up with building #7, its a blatant demolition and the only people who refute it are those that are either Shills, sheep ,Uneducated or just plain brainwashed. C'Mon dude look at that building fall!! These aren't buildings made out of brick or cement, they have fire suppression systems in them, fire sprinklers you know? The steel is all covered with a spray mixture of concrete and asbestos ( Yes it still had the asbestos in them), its terribly difficult to get that spay on fire retardant off. Asbestos is one of the best fire proofing materials known to man and ALL the beams are coated in it. This makes them VERY VERY fire resistant.Yet somehow it fell, I don't buy it, I never will. All the evidence points to something sinister in our country, a pervasive evil lurking in the highest offices of our Republic!


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Oh jeezus that made me laugh. LMFAO!


Good. Humor is good. Did you actually read it? It will come up again later.



NoDrama said:


> You gotta know 1 thing, the fires were only fed by the fuel for a few minutes, not 56 and 102 respectively. The fuel burned off FAR sooner than that, in fact 95% was used up in the original
> crash and explosion, it did not continue to burn.


Gas burns faster than jet A. It is basically kerosene. 



NoDrama said:


> You aren't really trying to make the argument that fuel burns forever right?


Nah... I am a clever duck.



NoDrama said:


> The truck you have as an example never blew up, the fuel burned for hours and hours as it was just sitting there under the bridge.


Oh... I see... you didn't bother to read my post or look at my evidence. You are clearly misinformed. 21 minutes. That is all it took.



NoDrama said:


> Since the circumstances are completely different we can't really use the truck accident as precedent for what happened to the towers. And it does NOTHING to explain WTC #7.


We aren't really addressing any coincidental circumstance other than the effects of heat on steel. The rest of the facts I laid out are really in opposition.



NoDrama said:


> As far as explosions go, here is proof in thuis video I dug up. you hear the explosions go off. I did not watch the whole thing so I am not sure what all is covered, but you sure can hear the explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw


So... we are going back to regular ordinance and dropping the thermite argument?



NoDrama said:


> Just watch the first minute and let me know what you think.


Will do.



NoDrama said:


> FWIW when demo charges go boom, they don't make a big hollywood explosion, they make a very defined fast loud crack sound, no fire involved like you see in hollywood.


No... there is (obscurable) flash and are ear piercingly loud.



NoDrama said:


> My biggest question for you right now is why? There have been other high rises tht have burned for 30 hours with flames much more intense than those of the WTC. I gave you pictures of these " Towering Infernos". Yet these buildings after burning for 15 times longer than WTC and completely gutting the building so that the only thing left is the steel. Yet these buildings did not fall, why? Did the people who built the Trade center buildings do a bad job? I mean were the engineers who designed them have a bad design that could not withstand some smaller fires? And for the most part those are smaller fires, the amount of smoke has nothing to do with it, ever seen a hay bale burn...shitloads of smoke, looks like a house was on fire.


I will get back to that. Still got to get over this little stumbling block where you do not actually read my posts and stick to disproven statements. Foundations and whatnot.



NoDrama said:


> Then we have WTC building # 7. by all accounts it should never have fallen, there were no large fires, the interior of the building was completely intact,


What accounts are these? Because every account I read said they were expecting it to fall. Fires raged unchecked in that building for 7 hours.



NoDrama said:


> therefore the core was unharmed.


Not logical.



NoDrama said:


> Sure there was a gash in the facade, but that did not affect its integrity at all, you could remove every wall in the building and it would not fall because these buildings are supported by the CORE of the building...massive multiple steel columns that could withstand a 800C fire for weeks and not deform. How? well because metal conducts heat, and it will conduct it over its whole area, so 1 small fire affecting 1 beam does not make 500 feet of the beam soften and melt. the beam is able to conduct that heat away from the point of the fire.


A very interesting argument... that I will address again later.



NoDrama said:


> Its almost believable that the towers fell because of the planes, they did a good job of making that one Almost legit. good enough for the masses of sheep anyway. But they really fucked up with building #7, its a blatant demolition and the only people who refute it are those that are either Shills, sheep ,Uneducated or just plain brainwashed. C'Mon dude look at that building fall!! These aren't buildings made out of brick or cement, they have fire suppression systems in them, fire sprinklers you know? The steel is all covered with a spray mixture of concrete and asbestos ( Yes it still had the asbestos in them), its terribly difficult to get that spay on fire retardant off. Asbestos is one of the best fire proofing materials known to man and ALL the beams are coated in it. This makes them VERY VERY fire resistant.Yet somehow it fell, I don't buy it, I never will. All the evidence points to something sinister in our country, a pervasive evil lurking in the highest offices of our Republic!


I know. All far too advanced to get into without addressing these core facts again.

I didn't suggest that the same thing happened to the bridge as the wtc. I simply laid out the following facts...

1. The truck struck the guard rail at 3:41 am

2. The 6 i-beams became weakened and collapsed under its own weight in only 21 minutes. I sourced all of this.

3. The truck was carrying 8600 lbs of unleaded.

4. The jets had about 20,000 lbs of jet A.

5. Structural steel looses half of its rigidity at 1000F.

6. Towers 1 and 2 burned for 102 and 56 minutes respectively.

7. There was nothing else on the road.

8. The building was full of stuff.


I have not waged an argument yet. I would ask that you quit trying to anticipate one. I assure you, you have no idea where I am going.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2009)

1. I can agree with you there.
2. Your sources either didn't give the amount of I beams that deformed, or I missed so i can't agree with ya there.
3. 8,600 GALLONS, again you have the facts wrong.
4. Maybe more than that, most of it vaporized and burnt up in the big fireball, look at jets that have crashed on the ground, the fuel doesn't burn for very long before it is used up.
5. actually its 800C which is 1400 F
6. agreed, hardly enough time to affect the THOUSANDS of steel beams, remember the whole of each building came down at near freefall speed which could only happen if nearly all of the thousands of steel beams on every floor simultaneously deformed.
7. sure, just a small intensely burning tank of 8,600 GALLONS of fuel ( 64,000 lbs of fuel which is 3 times the planes carried according to YOU, 1 gallon of unleaded weighs about 8 lbs)
8. Define full. You mean packed to the gills stuffed full, or just normal office furniture, steel filing cabinets, paperwork, computers, chairs and the like full? Define stuff, You mean cotton doused with dynamite and gasoline , oily rags, perhaps a giant 50 million bottle collection of everclear? Or do you mean every day ordinary office furniture like you would find anywhere else?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2009)

I read your posts, are you saying the fire for the truck only burned for 21 minutes, or are you saying the metal deformed in 21 minutes, please make it clear, its important.

Take a 500 gallon drum of fuel and cut the top off, light it on fire. How long will it burn? Now take the 500 gallon drum of fuel and atomize it into a vapor in the air and light it on fire, how long will it burn? I won't even ask you which burns longer because there is only 1 answer and from your posts i can tell your a educated person. You should know that our government makes shit up all the time to use as an excuse to go to war, just like they have now admitted that the whole incident that got us into the Vietnam war was a completely made up incident. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

And I have now said that it was TWO types of devices that were used to take the buildings down, I have said this from the beginning. Thermite to weaken the main structure, and cutting charges to get the momentum going for it to fall. I really do read your posts, but I don't think you reciprocate at all.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> 1. I can agree with you there.


Sweet.



NoDrama said:


> 2. Your sources either didn't give the amount of I beams that deformed, or I missed so i can't agree with ya there.


My bad... I have just been looking at the pics so long I know.







Now I feel like a prick for being... well a prick and suggesting you weren't reading.



NoDrama said:


> 3. 8,600 GALLONS, again you have the facts wrong.


You are absolutely correct... sorry. Tired. Gallons of course, for both.



NoDrama said:


> 4. Maybe more than that, most of it vaporized and burnt up in the big fireball, look at jets that have crashed on the ground, the fuel doesn't burn for very long before it is used up.


Yes... I mislabeled the units.



NoDrama said:


> 5. actually its 800C which is 1400 F


Source? I know mine wasn't fair because it was in a real book... but I found this... 

http://books.google.com/books?id=gElhqbvL1J0C&printsec=frontcover#PPA265,M1



NoDrama said:


> 6. agreed, hardly enough time to affect the THOUSANDS of steel beams, remember the whole of each building came down at near freefall speed which could only happen if nearly all of the thousands of steel beams on every floor simultaneously deformed.


Again, I am simply stating facts. You are incorrectly asserting them into an argument I am not waging.




NoDrama said:


> 7. sure, just a small intensely burning tank of 8,600 GALLONS of fuel ( 64,000 lbs of fuel which is 3 times the planes carried according to YOU, 1 gallon of unleaded weighs about 8 lbs)


Again... I used the wrong measure for both. That also was sourced.



NoDrama said:


> 8. Define full. You mean packed to the gills stuffed full, or just normal office furniture, steel filing cabinets, paperwork, computers, chairs and the like full?


Fair question, I meant typical office environment.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2009)

Ok you got gallons and lbs mixed up, fair enough, you've been up all night devising an argument to make that's going to blow my socks off right?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 14, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Yes... and nobody is claiming that the steel was melted.


Ah hello ... there were reports of melted steel at the WTC site. Unless you are still harping on your bridge ... 



what... huh? said:


> It is the convenient use of a misnomer. Don't get mad at me because you either don't understand what melt means, or you are incapable of understanding that metals weaken under heat.


When did I say metals don't weaken under heat? It depends on the size of the metal and whether or not they been treated with a fireproof material which was done at the WTC. So don't have a cow because you can't comprehend the difference between what happen at the bridge and the WTC.



what... huh? said:


> I am not playing with words,


You haven't stop.




what... huh? said:


> I am using them correctly, and demonstrating your inappropriate use of them,


Only in your whacked out mind.



what... huh? said:


> by which your "scientific facts" are based on. You do not understand the terms being used. I am attempting to make them clear.


You are making an attempt to side step the issue which is 911 ... nothing more ... 



what... huh? said:


> I am not asking you about rebar. See "fat crayon writing"


Yeah ... well I'm telling you about the rebar ... which is way different than the steel in those buildings ... and the crayons suit you ... really.



what... huh? said:


> I said there were all kinds of sh1t in the streets... including a jet engine... and you asked for a source... to which I replied...


Sorry but your interpretation of what I said and what I actually said are obviously two different things. So once again you are blowing it out your ass ... what did I tell you folks!



what... huh? said:


> What did I miss there? Didn't seem like a real subtle post.


Well you missed my comment about corporate media and in your whacky mind convinced yourself that I said the aircraft parts were planted ... how you got that only the bushwhacked know ... but for the rest of us ... it's more proof of how you make shit up.



what... huh? said:


> For the fifth time, whether you understand it or not... I am not asking you to equate this event to 9/11.


And for the upteen time ... this thread is about 911 ... not about some bridge where a couple of sections fell ... and whether you understand or not the event does not dismiss what happen on 911 case close.



what... huh? said:


> I am trying to determine if you are rational... or irrational.


I was able to figure you are irrational in your first post.



what... huh? said:


> Now... if you deny the fatigue of steel...


No ... I'm denying the steel came down the way they say it did ... what part of that don't you get?



what... huh? said:


> as that seems to be your position... on that bridge, then please explain the bent squished metal in the fat crayon post.


I didn't see any "squished" metal ... but the bent metal was due to the fire weakening the rebar and concrete plus the weight of the asphalt and concrete on the bridge. The crayons characterizes your simple mind.



what... huh? said:


> (Damn though Grow... it looks like your more reasonable friend directly contradicts your earlier avoidance of reality.


Oh really? ... and when did she/he do that? ... it's obvious you don't see the same things us regular folks see ... so you will have to specify for the folks at home and me.



what... huh? said:


> I betcha he got bushwacked... whaddaya think?


As far as I'm concerned No gets it. And she/he has been very articulate in her/his post. Plus No is able to scope out some awesome pictures. Thanks so much for those constructions pictures No... you see folks ... see all the massive steel involved? And unlike the rebar in a bridge ... all that steel is coated with fireproof material so that blow oloso bullshit about rust and aluminum causing the traces of thermite.  Like I said before ... looking at those pictures there is no way on God's green earth that those buildings came down due to fire and plane impact ... no way ... at best there would be damage to the upper floors ... but no way are those buildings going to come down in seconds ... only after burning for less than 2 hours... no way. Not without help. That is why I am simply amazed how stupid some people are to believe such bullshit. 



what... huh? said:


> You probably just witnessed some sort of bushwack jedi mind trick... from here on out... I am going to refer to this obvious telepathic ploy of mine as "fact finding"... just so you know what I really mean...)


Refer to it anyway you'd like ... we all pretty much know how delusional you are. Knock yourself out.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2009)

You tell em Grow!


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 14, 2009)

wow im getting in to this real late but Im an ironworker and have worked with steel my entire life.

Structural steel melts at roughly 2500F, and uncontrolled burn MAX temperatures reach about 1400F. Not nearly enough to melt steel. The temp of your material can only be as high as the temp of the burn applied. Steel does loose some strength at around 1000F but not enough for it to deform and collapse. If that were so, OSHA would not allow these materials to be used for high rise construction. Plus everything is covered in fire proofing. The "Official Report" said the fire proofing was "blown off" on impact, which is obviously a LIE. To reach temps high enough to melt steel you need a controlled burn aided by a compressed gas. Like your stove... Its made of steel yet it doesn't deform under the controlled "blue flame" burn of natural gas... Which is way hotter then a nasty uncontrolled burn.

No high rise in history has fallen due to fire..... On 9/11, three towers *smoldered *for 90 minutes....then fell... and everyone bought it. Does anyone know the sign of an unhealthy fire?... its smoke.

If anyone believes fire brought those towers down is a helpless puppet....Hell most of the jet fuel went up in flames immediately upon impact, hence the gigantic fireball....

Those buildings were designed to withstand several airplane impacts, its like a mesh of 3-4" thick steel tubes.

Peace out, Educate yourselves, Dont get caught up in the media.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Ok you got gallons and lbs mixed up, fair enough, you've been up all night devising an argument to make that's going to blow my socks off right?


Time will tell.

... oh and I mean that the bridge took 21 minutes to collapse due to heat.

Hush now Grow, the adults are talking...






The problem with my apparent argument is that heat fatigue isn't what brought that bridge down.

The steel melted.

In 21 minutes.

"Engineers estimated that the flames reached close to 3,000 degrees -- hot enough to melt the green steel frame and bolts of the I-580 overpass. "

But wait... what is that nonsense? What temp does gas burn at?

How is this possible? Are they mad? Perhaps here is a clue...

"No sign of the truck remained by daybreak. A Caltrans worker held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart to describe how big the tanker was by then."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/30/MNGK8PI1CI1.DTL

So... let me get this straight... since we know that gas does NOT burn at 3000 deg... that would have to mean that something else capable of reaching that temperature must have been on fire... Perhaps the truck? Perhaps the road itself?

So in 20 minutes a faster burning fuel manages to ignite a truck/road fire so hot that it reaches 3000 degrees. 


Ooh... lookey there... they say that steel looses half its rigidity at 1000 too. 

It really does all come full circle. The first argument I waged. House fires get hot enough to incinerate bone.

Office fires begun in an explosive ball of fuel do so quicker.



I don't think any of that was too devastating.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

I am sorry to both the construction worker and the welder...


The engineers disagree with you. Nothing personal, but I am going to defer to their judgment. 


If you want to link me to a structural engineer who agrees with you I will be happy to look at it... but that is basically like me saying I have been smoking all my life, and if you burn one side of your seeds before you plant them, they will double your yield.

I would assume you would defer to the horticulturist.


More engineers.
http://www.pecg.org/Download/Informer-7-2007.pdf

The Federal Highway Administration agrees.
http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/01/MNGQUPII791.DTL

More engineers for the FHWA. 
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Structure_Design/accel_bridge_construction/documents/ABC_LessonsLearned_v1-1.pdf


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 14, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> wow im getting in to this real late but Im an ironworker and have worked with steel my entire life.


Ah ... another member of our viewing audience ... welcome ... an iron worker ... I overcame my fear of heights thanks to the iron workers ... you guys are awesome ... ladies and gentlemen ... you should see these guys at work ... 47 stories up and if not for their safety harnesses you would think they behaved as thought they were working on the ground! Kudos to the iron workers!



huffy420 said:


> Structural steel melts at roughly 2500F, and uncontrolled burn MAX temperatures reach about 1400F. Not nearly enough to melt steel. The temp of your material can only be as high as the temp of the burn applied. Steel does loose some strength at around 1000F but not enough for it to deform and collapse. If that were so, OSHA would not allow these materials to be used for high rise construction. Plus everything is covered in fire proofing. The "Official Report" said the fire proofing was "blown off" on impact, which is obviously a LIE. To reach temps high enough to melt steel you need a controlled burn aided by a compressed gas. Like your stove... Its made of steel yet it doesn't deform under the controlled "blue flame" burn of natural gas... Which is way hotter then a nasty uncontrolled burn.


Thanks for the input on this ...



huffy420 said:


> No high rise in history has fallen due to fire..... On 9/11, three towers *smoldered *for 90 minutes....then fell... and everyone bought it.


That fact is jaw dropping to me ... 



huffy420 said:


> Does anyone know the sign of an unhealthy fire?... its smoke.
> 
> If anyone believes fire brought those towers down is a helpless puppet....


No argument here ... and those that are presented with the evidence that shows the obvious and still accept the bullshit story are 



huffy420 said:


> Hell most of the jet fuel went up in flames immediately upon impact, hence the gigantic fireball....
> 
> Those buildings were designed to withstand several airplane impacts, its like a mesh of 3-4" thick steel tubes.


You think they would be able to comprehend that with pictures of all that massive steel ... 



huffy420 said:


> Peace out, Educate yourselves, Dont get caught up in the media.


Thanks for posting ... you iron workers are okay by me ... 



what... huh? said:


> I am sorry to both the construction worker and the welder...
> The engineers disagree with you. Nothing personal, but I am going to defer to their judgment.


The engineers disagree with you about the WTC ... but I don't see you "defer to their judgment" ... I wonder why?



what... huh? said:


> If you want to link me to a structural engineer who agrees with you I will be happy to look at it...


Oh you mean like the structural engineer Richard Gage ... who you claim was lying ... even though you couldn't tell us why or how ... you mean like him?



what... huh? said:


> but that is basically like me saying I have been smoking all my life, and if you burn one side of your seeds before you plant them, they will double your yield.
> 
> I would assume you would defer to the horticulturist.


I don't give a damn about this bridge ... it has nothing to do with 911 ... there were no inconsistencies to the event that occurred ... there is no evidence of foul play .... yet there is plenty of evidence of foul play on 911 ... The bridge was an accident no ifs ands or buts about it ... totally different than what happen on 911 ...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2009)

Yeah im kinda tired of the bridge thing too, there isn't really any similarities to WTC buildings. Sure fire can melt steel, of course, how do you think they melt it in the first place, no one argues that point with you what...huh. The point we are trying to make is that its so not possible to happen to the towers, I linked you really good sources that showed the tower fires looking like girlscout weiner roasts compared to the fires some of these high rises suffered, and none fell down. So if all other high rises that have caught fire and not fallen down, then how is it that you are trying to state that these ones somehow did? Even the government itself and all the paid engineers and NIST can't explain it either in fact the commision even states that they can't figure it out, what do you say to that?

As far as engineers not agreeing with me, well I got at least 696 bona fide engineers and architects who agree that 911 was a sham. No not just a sham, but also a mockery, a Shamockery if you will. http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 14, 2009)

Not to open another bag of worms. Something tells me that IF and by some crazy theory IF those core beams did get hot enough to melt and deform I have trouble seeing them all at once deform or melt into itself? I'm lost on how to describe? Umm? I don't know really what I'm trying to say but wouldn't the building have maybe doubled over? Bent over?

What about Building 7? That one is the one to focus on. Maybe the pentagon and the other"plane" Sorry for the insensitivity but there are soooo many things that I cannot ignor. I don't even bother arguing much really I'm happy!!!


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Yeah im kinda tired of the bridge thing too, there isn't really any similarities to WTC buildings.


You are bored? It took me 10 pages of insisting you answer my single question... and YOU are bored of the bridge? Cry me a phucking river. I am so sick of this bridge you couldn't imagine. You force this to be laborious. 

I seem to remember before I entered this thread the position you have just accepted (though you do not yet understand the relevance) was heralded as "defying the laws of physics". "Lies". "Stupidity". I have fought tooth and nail for what? My agenda? My plot to become closer endeared to GWB? For accuracy. That is all. You are bored. With all due respect go phuck yourself with your boredom. You FORCE me to dredge the lake of this fairytale... and you are bored... I am bored. I am bored of you, and those like you telling me our friends didn't die. That my family is involved in a treasonous conspiracy to betray their country and engage in active murder of her people... and you are bored? lol.

I am bored of dragging you people by your hair across the jagged edge of truth. I have been here 2 weeks and I have undone this bit of rhetoric which you ALL have been espousing for the last 8 years as science. You think you are bored? Get used to disappointment. I will continue to bore you by God... this is just the beginning. I am not done by damn sight. 



NoDrama said:


> So if all other high rises that have caught fire and not fallen down, then how is it that you are trying to state that these ones somehow did? Even the government itself and all the paid engineers and NIST can't explain it either in fact the commision even states that they can't figure it out, what do you say to that?


I say I told you I will address any concern of yours. Give me a schematic of the building in asia. Did it have a cement core? There could be a hundred reasons. I will try and find one that appeases. Maybe it's fireproofing was better than the 60s aspestos spray which seems to be coming apart all over the country creating health hazards etc... or maybe... just maybe... for all your research and presumed understanding, you really just don't grasp the concept of specific energy, and why a fire that works its way into a flame is not the same as one ignited with the explosive energy of hydrocarbons. Maybe because a 200000 pound jet didn't slam into the fucking thing before releasing 43 megajoules per kg of fucking energy from 20,000 GALLONS of fuel... ya know... for starters. Maybe you are just a jackass on a computer playing forensic scientist. Maybe I am too.

Maybe that building and the WTCs just don't have enough in common. 

Ask more interesting questions if you are mired in the tedium of truth and some unanswerable questions. Wah... reversing my belief structure is boring.



NoDrama said:


> As far as engineers not agreeing with me, well I got at least 696 bona fide engineers and architects who agree that 911 was a sham. No not just a sham, but also a mockery, a Shamockery if you will. http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php


LOL. Funny that the weak position finds strength in some minds for sake of being the minority. I like to root for the underdog as much as the next guy... but the scientific and engineering community at large rejects these notions resoundly. Either there is safety in numbers or there is not. You cannot have it both ways.

Einstine couldn't bring together the principals of general relativity and quantum physics. Does that mean there was no answer or was he wrong? Was he an idiot? There are simply things that are unknowable at this point about 9/11 given the chaotic nature of the situation and the wholesale destruction of that which we are attempting to comprehend. This was not a science experiment. It was an event.

I am going to try and inspire just a wee bit of understanding here with a rhetorical question.

What if the maze fire had never happened? What possible evidence could I have demonstrated which would have made you come to the understanding you now have of the temperament of steel?

Nothing.


You think you are bored.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> Not to open another bag of worms. Something tells me that IF and by some crazy theory IF those core beams did get hot enough to melt and deform I have trouble seeing them all at once deform or melt into itself? I'm lost on how to describe? Umm? I don't know really what I'm trying to say but wouldn't the building have maybe doubled over? Bent over?


Like this? 







Tip due to structural weakness then fall on itself with the downward force of 20 stories, an acre of sq. footage per story, falling from the sky onto a building of equal footprint? Yeah... that is about what I might expect too.

Ever wonder why 1 took twice as long to fall as 2?

Think it might have had to do with the weight/number of in tact floors above and that magic elasticity point of steel weakening? Makes a little more sense. If it were demo'd... way to think ahead... and aim those planes... just to give me a logical argument 8 years later.









mexiblunt said:


> What about Building 7? That one is the one to focus on. Maybe the pentagon and the other"plane" Sorry for the insensitivity but there are soooo many things that I cannot ignor. I don't even bother arguing much really I'm happy!!!


No problem at all. Most agree that 7 is the tricky one.

Doesn't seem that tricky to me. They say there were 3 diesel generators with upwards of 43000 gallons of fuel in them.. but I have not found anything corroborating any kind of explosion. It is noteworthy that it was there. Don't know how that would work into it really. I had decided not to "do" 7 till I was done with 1 and 2. You might notice I like to move one thing at a time. Much harder to avoid reality that way.

There were three main web trusses which supported the entire weight of the building. As the main truss began to fail, the weight of the building shifted backwards, creating the bulge between floors 10 and 13. Less than an hour later, after having been burning for 7 hours unbattled... it failed. They all knew it was going to fail. They had bigger problems. They just cleared the area and did their jobs.



That is another problem with conspiracists.

You have to assume the firemen, who lost more than 300 fellow brethren, were complicit in all of this.

NYFD is a pretty tight group. I have issues with that on principal.

"They were going up as we were coming down. I kept thinking, 'how are they going to put those fires out?'. They all looked as they passed. They all had blue eyes. They were all beautiful."

-WTC occupant wandering the street on 9/11

It's offensive.



And that is why I continue to engage... and will continue to engage. It is offensive to the thousands of fire and rescue, cops, building maintenance crews, security, ground crews, passengers, flight crews, reporters, camera crews, drivers, politicians, commercial enterprises, secretaries, demolition experts, servants, engineers, air traffic controllers, airport administrators, scientists, lab technicians you accuse of complicity, required for your beliefs to be possible.

How many would it require? How would you coordinate such an enterprise? I guess you would need programmers and modelers too... I will add some more to this list every time I post.

There is no single goal which all of these people could possibly have to gain from this treason, this horror.

Do I have to rule out mind control too?

Every one of the people required in these groups can not possibly keep this a secret. It is ridiculous to even have to argue this... and yet... here I am.

We must question our government. We must also be just in judgment... even if you think it "sounds like something they would do." If for no other reason because it would require TOO MANY AMERICANS COOPERATION to be feasible. 

I cannot prove a negative, but I can demonstrate it's implausibility.

It is implausible. It is impossible. It is offensive.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 14, 2009)

I wonder if in the distant future, if there will be those who deny it even happened... like the moon landing. A hollywood stage... the wool pulled over the worlds eyes. I wonder how I would argue that.

"my great grandma lost an uncle"

"Bullshit. Was she there? What is his name? ... Yeah... He retired to the Cayman Islands with a masseuse. There is his picture... the fat guy on the left."

The futility of arguing a subject with people who ignore truth if it interferes with their dogma is frustrating... but maybe someone on the fence goes "oh... yeah... how bout that?"

Cleaning crews.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 14, 2009)

Hey buddy, you could take 1 girder and poke it in the ground, take 1 trillion billion gazillion TONS of jet a and light her up and let it burn around the girder, come back in 20 minutes when the fuel is all burnt out and I will take wagers that the girder is still there intact.

The diesel fuel in WTC #7 is a non issue, its already been proven that the diesel never ignited. Nope they made these buildings out of sticks and cardboard that's why they fell. Hey if the fires were so fucking hot, howe come the windows didn't all blow out like they should have?

See this?






The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed. That fire makes any of the WTC fires look like a fucking weeny roast! You sure as fuck can't deny that is one mutha fucka of a fire, probably has temps in the thousands of degrees.

but your trying to convice all of us that this (10 seconds before its collapse)






Was somehow worse? You sir, have to be blind!

It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, three skyscrapers were transformed into piles of rubble primarily as a consequence, supposedly, of fires -- fires spanning small fractions of each building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours. However such parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases -- one being that the Hotel Mandarin Oriental, designed by the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, had a full-height interior atrium, and thus had the hollowness that the 911 Commision deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers. 

Column failure theory proponents usually invoke some combination of structural damage and fire stress to explain total collapse. Structural damage is used to explain the insufficiency of fire stress and vice versa, in a kind of circular argument. 

You just can't rationally explain it can you? And it is eating away at you like it has for all of us the last 8 years. Something in the back of your mind wants to believe the truth, but the conscious mind retches at the thought of accepting such.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2009)

Hey I just noticed something from your pics that supposedly show the tipping you are trying to explain to mexi, I think he was actually wonder why something like this didn't happen.






But now that I look at your time lapse set of 4 pics





I see that in [SIZE=-1]examining the middle edge of the falling portion of the tower shows that its angle of tilt from vertical remains about the same between the second and third frames, and therefore the top has stopped rotating. But unless the top had already been shattered, it should have continued to rotate in accordance with the law of conservation of angular momentum. [/SIZE]A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.

Consider getting ankle straps to keep your socks on!


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 15, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Hey I just noticed something from your pics that supposedly show the tipping you are trying to explain to mexi, I think he was actually wonder why something like this didn't happen.


Because that one had a structural problem at the base... the WTCs structural problems all happened at mid point, so you have the full weight of ten times that collapsing into a hole, and gathering weight... and so on. You will notice the top of the building DID do that. I assume you have seen the rest of the clip where the building caves and collapses. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm9uNfAJ9G4

Notice the sharp corners of that building as it hits the other one? See the damage to the other building is not squared... but as the two structures collided (lateral force, so not as good an example as dropping it crooked on another building) they destroyed each other only enough to equalize the collision and resistance?


That is what the top of the wtc was doing... only it was crashing into floors beneath, each not capable of baring the load of 10 more stories, 11, 12, 13, 14, on down to the ground. You do realize that is WHY there is so much steel work in the building... to balance the load... because if one piece of the foundation could do it, it would be designed like the space needle.

We are dealing with MASSIVE pulverizng forces on earth. Do you have the slightest guess of the weight of 15 stories with a square footage of an acre each, full of crap... wiring... people... elevators... AC units... would weigh? How SHOULD it behave when falling effectively on top of another building?




NoDrama said:


> But now that I look at your time lapse set of 4 pics
> 
> 
> 
> ...


sigh... for you this is all just an article of faith. Your entire line of reasoning is still the same.

"I didn't expect them to fall that way." 

"It sounds like something the government would do."

You just keep throwing darts, hoping something will stick to your theory... and you think _that _is method.

The upper floors are collapsing some during this immense collision of floors trying to making an accordian. The sharp corners of the building are pulverized against the massive resistance of the floors beneath as they are crushed. 

It equalizes against the other side until it is a mass of debris being impacted between the flattened floors from above still in tact but slightly reshaped top of the building builds momentum as the buffer dibris is equal to the top portion which grinds them both down to the ground.

Massive forces at work.



NoDrama said:


> Consider getting ankle straps to keep your socks on!


Bring it, lest it be brougten.

I have answered several questions now, or at least addressed them, to my one question. I have asked a second and would like an answer before I continue to engage new questions.

Your entire argument is based only in two beliefs, and you will continue to search for anything that signifies evidence to support your beliefs. Nothing will convince you otherwise. Your faith is unshakable. I do not expect to ever win this... so you know. 

Sound famliar?

That is another thing... I do not need to provide and prove an alternative theory to disprove one. I do not have to be at the ready in order to contrive a scenario in a scope above both of our pay grades to DISPROVE yours. If you were to say "there is no chocolate in m&m's" and I, through some painstaking method demonstrate to you that there is indeed chocolate... and you say "Then why does it taste funny?"... I don't have to know that answer. I am not proposing theories. You are. I am happy to demonstrate a rational answer if I think I have one... but I am not required to have one... I am not positing a theory. I believe what happened was what we all witnessed.

Thousands of volunteers who flooded in to help.
- They hid and destroyed evidence.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 15, 2009)

The nature of truth and truth seeking requires the honesty and competence required to find it.

Gage claiming that the WTC came down faster than gravity means that he is lacking one of those requirements.
How many examples of this will you require before accepting discrediting him? I only require one. 

For instance, I am not a munitions expert. I have demonstrated that. I will never do anything but ask questions on the subject if I am confused. I would not present evidence contrary to ND's assertions as facts. I would ask for clarification. 

I am, however comfortable in saying that the argument that wtc 1 or 2 fell faster than gravity is counter-intuitive because of the free falling debris outpacing the building collapse. Debris with long flat surfaces for plenty of wind resistence... so also not at the rate of gravity in a vacuum, and certainly not faster... outpacing the collapse. I mean unless you think that debris was being pulled to the earth with invisible wire and some sort of fast reeling motor... I don't really need the rest... ya know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ8wlKK15JM&feature=related

Watch it as many times as you need to to find the big chunks of debris lapping the building collapse. 


Discredited.

I don't need to be an architect to say he is either stupid, which I don't believe he is, or disingenuous for whatever motivation. I don't really need to know.


----------



## olosto (Jun 15, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMibXJjx_DE&NR=1

End of story....


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2009)

the only thing your videos prove is that the steel girders chopped themselves into little pieces and then were forcefully ejected from the building.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2009)

You must think that every person involved with the operations/rescues/survival was concerned about getting "Evidence" you must be joking right? The firemen have a job to do, it does not include looking for explosives or anything else. They have procedures they must follow, they are not autonomous. I seriously doubt anyone at thwe time was in the mindset to start collecting evidence, especially since no one could get anywhere close to the site.

Explain this to me, im sure you won't since almost all questions I ask are totally ignored. Why did all the steel get removed from the site, melted down and recycled before the 911 commission was even finished with its investigation? Are we under some serious steel shortage and needed that right away? any idea why they would do that so quickly for just this one site, but not others? Perhaps its because the steel would likely show evidence of wrongdoing? 


Hey your floor impact theory does not make sense. If the building could not support the weight of 10 floors, how was it even able to stand in the first place, I mean the bottom floor has all that weight of the previous 110 floors above it, according to your logic it should have all come tumbling down when they got the 10th floor built, cuz obviously they are using wood to build with, and cardboard. BNot HUGE steel girders or anything. and how about answering all those questions you said you would get back to? You can't just skirt thwe issue and only discuss what you wwant while ignoring every other piece of damnable evidence.


----------



## chicoles (Jun 15, 2009)

Discredited.

I don't need to be an architect to say he is either stupid, which I don't believe he is, or disingenuous for whatever motivation. I don't really need to know.[/quote]

What is the motivaton for perpetuating these conspiracy theories? I think it is similar to someone who believes in magic or witchcraft. Below average intelligence with a need to feel important. Why does someone feel he can see the truth that thousands of experts have missed? What motivates people to pretend they know something that has been so discredited.

That is what I take from this thread. Why do you think what you think? The answer is not pretty.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 15, 2009)

Why do I think what I think? Because I can fucking count.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ8wlKK15JM&feature=related

How is that less than 10 seconds as Gage claims? It isn't. If you can't accept that... what is YOUR motivation?

What is Gages? Dunno. To sell books? To be famous? I don't claim to know the mind of Richard Gage.

I claim to be able to count.

What motivation does ATC have in ramming planes into buildings?

If you took ten floors and dropped them on top of the wtc from five floors up, what do you think would happen? Think it would "support that weight"?

Here is the thing you just really fail to understand about the fundamental differences between these buildings and every other you have mentioned.

They were really fucking big. 

The tensile strength of steel does not change.

The effect of gravity on objects does not change.

What changes is the weight. Dramatically. 

The amount of beams required to support the weight and structure which dispersed those loads is precisely that... a requirement because of the massive loads. The explosions did a tremendous amount of damage to the frames of those buildings. Then they burned, hot and instantly, for different times. The building was not designed to take such an impact alone.

@my video... one of gazillions...

Ok... so it is your contention, that this piece of debris both exploded outward, and straight down? That the huge column of debris to the right of the collapsing, evidently... these charges were blowing everything out and downward? Is that right? Here... I made you a picture.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 15, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Explain this to me, im sure you won't since almost all questions I ask are totally ignored.





what... huh? said:


> I have answered several questions now, or at least addressed them, to my one question. I have asked a second and would like an answer before I continue to engage new questions.





NoDrama said:


> Why did all the steel get removed from the site, melted down and recycled before the 911 commission was even finished with its investigation?





what... huh? said:


> That is another thing... I do not need to provide and prove an alternative theory to disprove one.


How many people were involved in this coverup. Rough guess.


----------



## Dankdude (Jun 15, 2009)

[youtube]lGYwN5rsvyI[/youtube]

The planes hit New York City
And thousands now are dead
"It was Arab terrorists"
This is what you said
Well if that is the truth
Then what have you got to hide
And what were you doing
On the day all those people died
Where the fuck were the fighter jets
Ordered by the FAA
And what is your explanation
For what you were heard to say
When you told the Air Force to stand down
Not to intercept
Did you plan to let it happen
Or are you just inept

(Chorus)
I am left to wonder
As the flames are reaching higher
Was this our latest Lusitannia
Or another Reichstag Fire

There's some distressing information, sir
Which I think should be explained
Just which things have been lost
And just what has been gained
Like the thousands of put options
Bought days before the crash
If the money were collected
It would make quite a pretty stash
And the only stocks they bought
Were American and United
Deutsche Bank knows the answer
But the names have not been sighted
And is it just coincidence
That this firm in the private sector
Was once run by "Buzzy" Krongard
Ex-CIA Director

(Chorus)

There's something fishy in Virginia
And I want an explanation
Why did they get the contract
What is Britannia Aviation
A one-man operation
Corporation with no history
He said he worked in Florida
But there he was a mystery
So is there a connection
I think it bears investigation
When the FAA found boxcutters
Does this cause you consternation
Hidden behind the seats
In these Delta planes
That had been fixed in Lynchburg
With Brittania at the reigns

(Chorus)

You said Bin Laden was your friend
But he isn't anymore
Now that he's not fighting Russia
In your proxy war
Who called the FBI
Off the Bin Laden family trail
When so many times you had the chance
To re-write this sordid tale
Sudan in '96
The Taleban in 2001
Offered to turn him over
And right then you coulda won
But perhaps it is the case
That you're avoiding victory
That to justify your exploits
You must have an enemy

(Chorus)

If you were not hiding from the truth
Then you'd have a truth commission
And not some masquerade
Kangaroo investigation
Hiring Henry Kissinger
The ancient master of deceit
To make sure all stones are left unturned
And the ruse is kept complete
And now you carry out your plans
Which you have had for decades
Conquering the world
With your troops and bombing raids
I see an evil regime
Led by an evil man
On Pennsylvania Avenue
Where this evil war began

(Chorus)


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 15, 2009)

Awesome post dankdude. Sums up kinda how I fell on the issue. I don't know what happened. Our own gov is messed enough I can't imagine what it's like in the U.S.A. 

I didn't know what CNN msn etc all these news stations were before 911. well I knew they were news stations but I didn't give a crap to pay attn. Then 911 I was consumed, My mom asked me in the weeks following if there was war would I go? I said hell yeah I was pissed. Then there was one incedent in the shock and awe that kinda blew me away. It was when heraldo was in two places within half an hour that were imposible to travel to in such a time as they did.

Not really that significant of an issue but It was to a guy like me who bought the whole shtick. Then I learned about propaganda and the media owned by the gov and all that jazz, then reporting #7 20 mins early. everything led me to questions, all the ones in this thread plus. I'm content that this will go on forever. I honestly don't know how a "conspiracy" this huge could be pulled off? But I do know that I can't believe the official story. And if it is a huge conspiracy... we are all here still talking and debating it so did it really work? If it was a false flag op... it worked too. Now lets go get bin-laden!! lol.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 15, 2009)

olosto said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMibXJjx_DE&NR=1
> 
> End of story....


Yeah, I think there's torsion of the frame evident in the video posted here. That alone would explain why the tower collapsed. Sudden buckling of the entire floor, and then the weight of the floors above it crashing on the floor below.

Not to mention in the previous video it is clear that there are debris spreading out in a parabolic trajectory around the building. I saw at least two fairly large pieces falling in parabolic curves.

9-11 CT - Bunch of bunk...


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 15, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> Yeah, I think there's torsion of the frame evident in the video posted here. That alone would explain why the tower collapsed. Sudden buckling of the entire floor, and then the weight of the floors above it crashing on the floor below.
> 
> Not to mention in the previous video it is clear that there are debris spreading out in a parabolic trajectory around the building. I saw at least two fairly large pieces falling in parabolic curves.
> 
> 9-11 CT - Bunch of bunk...


Yes... Great find ostlo. What about that guys? Please go back to thermite now and explain ctrled demo on that scale that doesn't burn in the explosion, or the hour long unfought fire. We have all seen thermite reactions. 

Explain it like I am 6.

Then sing me another song. I am much more inclined to abandon reason if there are pithy lyrics and a guitar.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 15, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> The nature of truth and truth seeking requires the honesty and competence required to find it.


Bwaa ha ha ha ... that's too funny since you lack all those requirements ...



what... huh? said:


> Gage claiming that the WTC came down faster than gravity means that he is lacking one of those requirements.


Now right here folks ... we catch the bushwhacked minded dead in the act of making shit up ... Gage *NEVER* claim the WTC came down faster than gravity ... this is what he did say ...
Well were told that the planes hit the buildings, and there was an explosion and a fire, and about a hour and a half later, in the case of the north tower, the buildings collapsed due to structural weakening, due to the fires. The problem is that we dont have large gradual deformations associated with collapses. And fires in high rises have never brought down a steel frame high rise building at all, ever. And what we have, unfortunately, is the evidence in the twin towers and the third skyscraper to collapse that day, ... We have the evidence of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  In the case of building seven, it collapses straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet. Its dropping, as you can see symmetrically, smoothly, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet. Two and a half seconds. This is uncanny, theres forty thousand tons of structural steel *designed to resist this collapse.*  
Busted ... for your delusions ...



what... huh? said:


> How many examples of this will you require before accepting discrediting him? I only require one.


How many examples of you pulling shit out your ass will we accept before discrediting him ... none. 




what... huh? said:


> I am, however comfortable in saying that the argument that wtc 1 or 2 fell faster than gravity


You're the only one that made that comment so you only discredited yourself. 



what... huh? said:


> is counter-intuitive because of the free falling debris outpacing the building collapse. Debris with long flat surfaces for plenty of wind resistence... so also not at the rate of gravity in a vacuum, and certainly not faster... outpacing the collapse. I mean unless you think that debris was being pulled to the earth with invisible wire and some sort of fast reeling motor... I don't really need the rest... ya know?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ8wlKK15JM&feature=related
> 
> Watch it as many times as you need to to find the big chunks of debris lapping the building collapse.


The video proves what we have been saying all along ... those buildings didn't come down due to fire ... and plane impact case close.




what... huh? said:


> Discredited.


Yep ... you've been discredited again ... nothing new here.



what... huh? said:


> I don't need to be an architect to say he is either stupid, which I don't believe he is,


We all know he's not stupid.



what... huh? said:


> or disingenuous for whatever motivation. I don't really need to know.


Well as far as most of us are concerned you have yet to prove that. You really don't know ... you demonstrate that each time you post.



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Yeah, I think there's torsion of the frame evident in the video posted here. That alone would explain why the tower collapsed. Sudden buckling of the entire floor, and then the weight of the floors above it crashing on the floor below.


... the weight of the floors ... Total and complete nonsense ... that video only demonstrates that the building came down with help ... fire and plane impact is not going to cause that to happen ... no way ... 



TheBrutalTruth said:


> Not to mention in the previous video it is clear that there are debris spreading out in a parabolic trajectory around the building. I saw at least two fairly large pieces falling in parabolic curves.
> 
> 9-11 CT - Bunch of bunk...


911 government official story ... complete and total lie ... again folks isn't it amazing how many people fell for the bullshit? Is it because they are blind? ... afraid to face facts? Refuse to accept that some high position elite in this country don't give a damn about him and would have no problem what so ever killing as many "peons" as they deem necessary to push their agenda? ... Drinking far too much of the government kool-aid? ... what? All of the above? What makes them oblivious to the obvious? You have to admit ... the government propagandists are very good at brainwashing the general public.



what... huh? said:


> Yes... Great find ostlo. What about that guys?


Part of your delusion ... anyone in their right mind can see that building is doing the impossible ... if you buy the government bullshit ... which most of us don't.



what... huh? said:


> Please go back to thermite now and explain ctrled demo on that scale that doesn't burn in the explosion, or the hour long unfought fire. We have all seen thermite reactions.
> 
> Explain it like I am 6.


I could explain it like you were a two year old ... you would still disregard the facts as you have during this entire thread.



what... huh? said:


> Then sing me another song. I am much more inclined to abandon reason if there are pithy lyrics and a guitar.


Here ya go ... only cause I like you.
"9/11 Was An Inside Job" Official Music Video
[youtube]IJmDTnfZr6c&feature=related[/youtube]

NoDrama ... this is different shot of the construction picture I was looking for ... this one is further away and not as clear as the other ... it was on the thread ... 





Check it out folks ... see all that steel? These building were design to withstand what happen to them ... no way are they going to come crashing down in a few seconds in it's own foot print ... it's just impossible for it to happen the way the government claims ... if wieght of the floors  cause those towers to fall then why didn't the other skyscrapers I and No have presented in this thread do the same? They can't seem to get around that ... well there delusion gets them around it ... but for the rest of us ... it don't fly ... they are willing to accept the impossible and make ridiculous statements rather that accept the facts ... or at least demand an open investigation. They simply do not want to know the truth.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2009)

Dude those building came down cuz planes hit them, and the fires. I got a bridge that proves it, but if you link a building built just like them and it doesn't fall, well thats because its different than the building that fell. Everyone knows that skyscrapers are just bridges laid on end, sheesh i thought everyone knew that.

I watched Gage video 3 times to try and pinpoint where he says it falls faster than gravity, he doesn't, so like growrebel just accused you of, you make shit up and you do it to try and hoodwink others. Once again youve proven you are unable to regurgitate even the most basic facts.

You wanna know why they did it? well heres some of the consequences of that day of deceit.

Invasions and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
Global "War On terror"...sounds like "war on Drugs" doomed to fail, we can't even find a guy in a cave who supoposedly did it and masterminded the greatest attack ever on american soil. 
Creation of one of the largest subsectors of the Government...The Department of Homeland Security.
Civil Liberties legislation: Patriot act,military commisions act, Violent radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism prevention act.
Creation of torture policy
Executive orders creating unprecedent power of the executive branch
Continued oil Hegemony and the central banks that make slaves of the citizens

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance!.......Albert Einstein


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 15, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Yes... Great find ostlo. What about that guys? Please go back to thermite now and explain ctrled demo on that scale that doesn't burn in the explosion, or the hour long unfought fire. We have all seen thermite reactions.
> 
> Explain it like I am 6.
> 
> Then sing me another song. I am much more inclined to abandon reason if there are pithy lyrics and a guitar.



Hey man I really cant help some people cant/refuse to believe anything other then what "they" say. But I dont give a damn what "they" say or any other person who is not educated or has experience in high rise structures like I do! No offence but, you can look at all the videos you want, but if you dont know what your looking at it makes it difficult to see whats actually happening. 

When I look at the video I see the top 10 or so floors tilt to one side and then all of a sudden everything comes down in one perfect, straight, vertical line....everything pulverized in one big heap of rubble..... right?

Okay, well there are a few things with this. One being, the top 10 floors that initially tilted upon collapse should have kept falling in the direction it was moving (inertia) NOT suddenly change directions unless it was acted upon by another force. I think I recall you stating earlier "there's no way the building could support the force of that falling top section" or something along those lines... That statement made me chuckle that's why I remember it LOL! Dude the amount of iron and concrete involved in these buildings is almost unfathomable! Its completely over kill!! COMPLETELY capable of holding up its top 10%..... Trust me I have built many of steel structures. These were a tubular frame design fixed around a central core of elevator shafts and stairs (The most structurally sound part of the building). Each floor includes a grid of 3 and 4 inch thick tubes and I-beams, this all gets bolted together using structure bolts (typically A325 but i dont expect you to know that). This then gets steel decking laid on top and welded to every support beam/tube. Then completely covered in concrete 5-6 inches thick. Probably built in sections instead of one long structure. Meanwhile the outside being completely encased in more concrete. 

It is *impossible* for 100 floors of iron and concrete to pancake on top of each one at a time that fast!!! KERPLUNCK, KERPLUNCK, KERPLUNCK.... Thousands of bolts and welds on each floor giveaway simultaneously, concrete turns to dust all in 10 seconds..... 

GET REAL!! Have you ever seen a pancaked building??? Look at the LARGE sections of each floor, still intact!








This is NOT a pancaked building... 







Everything has been reduced to rubble and dust, from the 1st floor to the 110th. If those towers fell at all (with out the help of demolition) there would be SOMETHING still intact. Especially the elevator shafts on the lower floors!! 



As for thermite.... 







Thats a pretty good 45 degree miter on that 4inch thick tube in the background there. Hmmm... I wonder why that massive pile of rumble smoldered and had a river or molten steel run like rivers through it for months after?? Remember that? Peoples boots melting despite the amount of time passed... How so? Every one saw that "so-called" fire? How does it stay hot for so long? It cant.....


Thermite is highly explosive, An uncontrolled burn can NOT cause this because it is impossible (Laws of Physics) for a dirty burn to reach temperatures this high to make molten steel and iron







Plus I highly doubt a 5 day crash coarse flight trained stone thrower would be capable of navigating a commercial airliner across many states, identify the Hudson River (from many miles high), and be capable for navigating across many more states and into NYC. Maybe you should start researching commercial airplanes and their safety features. Looked like one of those jets makes some hard embankments as impact occurs. Probably pulling 3 or 4 G's. Im pretty sure commercial airliners cant make such maneuvers even with autopilot disabled, to protect its crew and passengers. But I have no hands on experience in that field unlike I do with steel buildings.


No worries Im not trying to make you believe....just trying to open your eyes a little so you can see your being misled by false information. Apply the laws of physics and most of everything your told about 9/11 turns to a false statement.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 15, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Dude those building came down cuz planes hit them, and the fires. I got a bridge that proves it, *but if you link a building built just like them and it doesn't fall, well thats because its different than the building that fell.* *Everyone knows that skyscrapers are just bridges laid on end*, sheesh i thought everyone knew that.


This is honestly the dumbest thing ive ever heard, cant wait to tell people at work LOL





NoDrama said:


> we can't even find a guy in a cave who supoposedly did it and masterminded the greatest attack ever on american soil.



NOPE but we sure can fly his entire family out of the US even though all flights had been grounded  Hmmm, sure did have a good chance to get some info on his where abouts....Why didnt we? Cause he didnt do it. He even said that he had nothing to do with 9/11 in a video. Yet here people are, still blinded by hate.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2009)

HEHE i hear that steel foundries are no longer using blast furnaces to melt their steel they now just burn desks and paperwork doused with a bit of JET A. its proven to melt steel up to 1000 feet away, the gubbermint crack spin team said so.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2009)

Here is the "OFFICIAL" terrorist list as put forth by the good ole US Gubbermint.

While the pilots trained in the United States, Bin Ladin and al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan started selecting the muscle hijackers&#8212;those operatives who would storm the cockpit and control the passengers on the four hijacked planes. (The term &#8220;muscle&#8221; hijacker appears in the interrogation reports of 9/11 conspirators KSM and Binalshibh, and has been widely used to refer to the non-pilot hijackers.) The so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5&#8217;5&#8221; and 5&#8217;7&#8221; in height and slender in build. In addition to Hazmi and Mihdhar, the first pair to enter the United States, there were 13 other muscle hijackers, all but one from Saudi Arabia. They were Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers), Abdul Aziz al Omari, Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri, Saeed al Ghamdi, Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami, Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi (the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi).

Now you would think that all 11 would be dead, after all they flew those planes into buildings that later were incinerated. Guess how many are alive? If you guessed " 7" then you are a fookin genius, cuz thats how many are alive today, the buildings blew up, the planes were destroyed, thousands of innocents were killed but 65% of the hijackers lived. Probably went into Building # 7 to find a safe spot and while there were roasting hot dogs and smores waiting for Osama to come pick them up in his Hummer Truck with spinners. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 15, 2009)

Hey huffy, wanna know why the building doesn't look like a pancaked building? cuz the jet was going so fast that it actually caused the entire building to melt from the intense friction from the impact. I know its true cuz the same thing happens when comets and asteroids that go 25,000 mph hit stuff, its the same thing. Boeing makes FAST airliners.

Well its either that or perhaps it got blown the fuck up?

Oh and lets not forget that the impact friction also caused molecular rearrangement of aluminum, iron oxide to make thermite, that thermite then instantaneously cut hundreds of thousands of steel beams in both buildings into nice 10 foot long pieces. While were at it it also caused the image of the Baby Jesus to appear on my morning toast.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 16, 2009)

lol. 

It has nothing to do with the application, it has to do with the material.

I will take your non objection of my introduction of evidence from various sources that steel looses half its rigidity at 1000 degrees... then I really only have to deal with 3 things.

1. Can I demonstrate that this fire would very easily be well over 1000 degrees?

2. Can I somehow convince the conspirators that this...






...might have had some minor effect on the structural integrity of some parts of the buildings?

3. Can I get an answer to my next single question before I waste more time disproving things only to have them be deemed irrelevant... though somehow before they were... particularly, if memory serves... ah well, on to the rest?

As the resident demo expert, can you please explain to me two things?

1. Can you explain why thermite would not ignite in that minor damage to the facade up there? Or for that matter while on fire for 102 minutes?
2. Can you show me, written or otherwise, when thermite has been used to demolish something of any scale you find significant?
And if you want to toy with other questions...
3. What sort of quantities would we need, and my next real question will be concerning the effort in placing these precision noncombustible thermite bombs.
D. Or whatever we are on. I just realized I write like Ricky now.
and 6. Don't use this as a reason to distract from my current question about a completely unprovable answer that you get to make up... how hard is this?


----------



## olosto (Jun 16, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Hey huffy, wanna know why the building doesn't look like a pancaked building? cuz the jet was going so fast that it actually caused the entire building to melt from the intense friction from the impact. I know its true cuz the same thing happens when comets and asteroids that go 25,000 mph hit stuff, its the same thing. Boeing makes FAST airliners.
> 
> Well its either that or perhaps it got blown the fuck up?
> 
> Oh and lets not forget that the impact friction also caused molecular rearrangement of aluminum, iron oxide to make thermite, that thermite then instantaneously cut hundreds of thousands of steel beams in both buildings into nice 10 foot long pieces. While were at it it also caused the image of the Baby Jesus to appear on my morning toast.


The stuff that happens with comets and such is much much hotter.. This only needed to impart about 700 degrees of temp to completey render the steel useless at a strustural component. That is in addition to the 1000 degrees plus that gas fire provided.

I am glad tho that you have finally come around to admitting that the impact of the jet and the fire caused the collapse of the building. 

Hey we got two exapmles of building that will topple when hit by a jet. 

Got any building collisions where a similar size jet at that similarly sized building and did not cause a building collapse?

I got two examples that say it topples after an hour or two after the collision..


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 16, 2009)

Ahh I turned on my vape yestereday. My friend asked what temp does that run at. I looked and it was set at 220C that's almost 450F I said. Then I thought WOW! I should be carefull my house is Almost half to melting and maybe weaken and fall over.


----------



## olosto (Jun 16, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> Ahh I turned on my vape yestereday. My friend asked what temp does that run at. I looked and it was set at 220C that's almost 450F I said. Then I thought WOW! I should be carefull my house is Almost half to melting and maybe weaken and fall over.


I think I just lost some brain cells trying to make sense of your post..


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 16, 2009)

Media Smearing of Truth Movement Reaching a Crescendo
Despite recent breakthroughs, media continues to paint 9/11 truthers, others as dangerous terrorists
Recent months have seen numerous breakthroughs for the truth movement in the corporate media, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbMFox 26's interview with Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to 9/11 Press For Truth being aired on local television in Colorado to coverage of this year's Bilderberg conference in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/charlie-skeltons-bilderberg-filesmajor British newspapers. Despite these positive developments, however, primetime TV dramas are continuing to portray those skeptical of the official 9/11 story (a clear majority of the American public according to http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/poll_only_16_percent_believe_gov_on_911.htmpoll after poll) as deranged terrorists who are likely to commit acts of violence.
Like I said the corporate propaganda tool is very good at brainwashing people ... the bushwhacked on this forum serve as excellent examples to that fact.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> 2. Can I somehow convince the conspirators that this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Simple, No need for thermite on the top 25% of the building... It just took a jet impact lol! Thermite used in the basement on the vertical columns (see pic in above post) and prolly at the buildings main joints (towers made in 3 sections). From the words of a demo expert, "You blow its base, and put it in its footprint".

See that big ass fire ball???? THERE IS ALL YOUR JET FUEL!! How hard is this to see people? 

Yes I agree its probably really hot 1000F easy.... but that fire ball isnt going to stay that intense that long. Its going to burn up real fuckin fast. Its just like striking an oxy-acetylene torch full blast and holding to steel for a brief moment then backing it off to a small dirty burn (aka office fire), but just on a smaller scale.... To effectively weaken steel you need intense heat for a LONGER period of time the a matter of seconds, also dont forget the steel is coated in fireproofing!!! For me to cut 1 inch steel (towers had 3 and 4 inch steel) with a torch at work you have to preheat the steel for atleast 30-45 seconds!! Think of what it takes to heat up 4 inch steel. This torch burns as high as 3400C. WAY hotter then a jet fuel fire ball for a few seconds then simmers down to a smolder in 30 min. Im sorry I have way too much knowledge in this field. Its impossible for me to believe FIRE (a weiner cookin fire at that) brought those towers down.





what... huh? said:


> 2. Can you show me, written or otherwise, when thermite has been used to demolish something of any scale you find significant?



Thermite is soley used by the military. So, being that the miltary doesnt demo buildings its going to be hard to find your written docs.





what... huh? said:


> 3. What sort of quantities would we need, and my next real question will be concerning the effort in placing these precision noncombustible thermite bombs.
> D. Or whatever we are on. I just realized I write like Ricky now.
> and 6. Don't use this as a reason to distract from my current question about a completely unprovable answer that you get to make up... how hard is this?



There are witness accounts of suspicious activity on vacant floors within the towers a week or two before "the attacks". Loud bangs, equipment rolling across floor, other kinds of construction sounds, ect.. a few days before the attacks people were complaining of "a light grey dust that covered all the desks and window ledges". (Sounds like concrete dust to me) There are also accounts of people reporting a power outage in both towers, I dont remember how long power was down though. But it was all going on during the weeks before. Now, both towers had been contracted for a "security upgrade". Supposedly, a crew from this company (Securacom serch it) had been contracted to install a new security system. Did I mention that the owner of Securacom is none other the Ex-Pres Bush's little brother _Marvin Bush_. 

Sounds like a fine time to rig a building to me. Especially when the powers down.... No door locks, no security cameras. Hell, any one of those "security engineers" had access to whatever part of the building he wanted to! 

Seems awfully fishy to me.... Construction noises, power outages, "grey dust", then a few days later we watched the rest.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2009)

Excellent post Huffy, what poor Olosto and What ...huh don't understand is that the fire never burned long enough to weaken shit, actually it could have raged for 8 hours and the building would have been fine, because once again here is a video of that same fire in Beijing, but I found out there was a fireworks factory in it, it blows up over and over. Now this building has a hollow atrium up the center and is built MUCH less sturdy than the superior core method used in the WTC buildings. Now fireworks in a contained area can reach 1400C http://www.springerlink.com/content/n73v1155452t7vn6/ YET THIS BUILDING DID NOT FALL!!!!!!!!! How is that possible if Olosto and What.....Duh or the US Gubbermint say is anywhere near correct?

Burning building , explosions video, you can hear the explosions. All 50 floors of the building were completely burned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

now here is the same building the day after.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sO7uLtfUZY

Don't gimme any of this "Chaos theory" bullshit, or well it was built different, cuz this is only one of MANY fires in highrises I can link that never fell.

You can't explain shit, anyone that watches this has to be asking themselves what really happened. ITS OBVIOUS the fires didn't take down the buildings, nor did the impact, nor did the combination of both. AND ALL OF YOUR THEORIES EXPLAIN NOTHING ABOUT BUILDING 7, you side step and obfuscate that building and avoid any discussion whatsoever on it, because those 2 little fires could not have done jack shit to the salomon bros building. No matter how much drivel comes out of your mouth to try and convince anyone otherwise is pointless, no one believes you. Its an inside job whether you want to admit to it or not, your own government killed those people and they got off scott free and will probably never have to face up to it. They did it with impunity to push their agenda, the same agenda since the first Bush. The New World Order. Global Governance.


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 16, 2009)

No Drama what do you do for a living?


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 16, 2009)

Very well put NoDrama! Bush has even talked about wanting to invade Iraq BEFORE he even ran for office. But he needed an new "Pearl Harbor" to gain the support of the sheep.... er uh im mean masses.


You know even United Flight 93, the one crashed in Pennsylvania... The "Official Report" claimed Mark Bingham (i think that was his name) made a phone call to his mother from his cell phone. The recording they played went something like this..... 

"Mark: Hello? Mom?! This is Mark Bingham"

Who the hell addresses themself by full name when talking their mom? 


Even more strange that in 2001 cell phone technology wasnt advanced enough to make a call from a moving aircraft, because the plane changes from cell to cell to quickly. Check it out http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93


Funny how the "Gubberment" (lol thanks drama) wont release any of the transripts for any of the "calls" made that day. Only play a pre-made recording, they claim were passengers aboard, were released. Anyone can make a recording.


----------



## HAT TRICK STEVE (Jun 16, 2009)

But it was all going on during the weeks before. Now, both towers had been contracted for a "security upgrade". Supposedly, a crew from this company (Securacom serch it) had been contracted to install a new security system. Did I mention that the owner of Securacom is none other the Ex-Pres Bush's little brother _Marvin Bush_. 

Sounds like a fine time to rig a building to me. Especially when the powers down.... No door locks, no security cameras. Hell, any one of those "security engineers" had access to whatever part of the building he wanted to! 

Seems awfully fishy to me.... Construction noises, power outages, "grey dust", then a few days later we watched the rest.[/quote]


from the elevator shafts and the internal core structure of the building, every major joint in the building could be reached and rigged with explosives without any of the working public in the offices ever seeing anything going on,.. with or without the power being off,..


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2009)

olosto said:


> I think I just lost some brain cells trying to make sense of your post..


I had no difficulty seeing where he was going with this, hes making the statement that his vaporizer gets half as hot as you say steel loses 100% of its rigidity, hell maybe 2 vaporizers set to max temp brought those buildings down?


----------



## olosto (Jun 16, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I had no difficulty seeing where he was going with this, hes making the statement that his vaporizer gets half as hot as you say steel loses 100% of its rigidity, hell maybe 2 vaporizers set to max temp brought those buildings down?


Wait, did someone say it lost 100% of its rigidity at 1000f or are you just making shit up again. There was a chart posted that showed the loss of stregnth at 1000f. I believe it was about 50%..

Stop making shit up or using half truths.. You will be much more creditable..

And huffy.. That was the initial impact. The fires raged untill the building came down, yes avgas burning for more than 5 min buddy, nice try tho.. 

That post still makes no sense and draws no paraells that are useable in this arguement. A totally useless post..


----------



## olosto (Jun 16, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Burning building , explosions video, you can hear the explosions. All 50 floors of the building were completely burned.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg
> 
> ...


Listen nutjob. Was the space very confined like WTC? No? Hmmm

Was it hit by a fucking plane high up in its structure? No? No sheared supports from impact? No 10 floors above it pressing down with cut and comprimised reinforcements? No? Hmm...

So you still have no paraell with WTC 1 and 2.. You have yet to show a highrise of similar construction being hit by a plane of similar size.. I have 2 examples that say it falls.. Again prove me wrong with cites and experts that don't wear tin foil hats. 

I posted a video where it shows the building giving way - bending then collapsing. I see no explosive work just the frame of a building that appeared to be giving way as if it was melting..


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Media Smearing of Truth Movement Reaching a Crescendo
> Despite recent breakthroughs, media continues to paint 9/11 truthers, others as dangerous terrorists
> Recent months have seen numerous breakthroughs for the truth movement in the corporate media, from Fox 26's interview with Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to 9/11 Press For Truth beingaired on local television in Colorado to coverage of this year's Bilderberg conference in major British newspapers. Despite these positive developments, however, primetime TV dramas are continuing to portray those skeptical of the official 9/11 story (a clear majority of the American public according to poll afterpoll) as deranged terrorists who are likely to commit acts of violence.
> Like I said the corporate propaganda tool is very good at brainwashing people ... the bushwhacked on this forum serve as excellent examples to that fact.


Can you imagine if some "Truther" was able to get evidence of the truth and all involved were made to be accountable? They just cannot have that, it would ruin everything they have worked for. Much easier to give you a "Terrorist" label so then (Because of the Patriot Act) you lose every single right you have. the Gubbermint can just lock you up in Guantanamo for daily torture, never charge you and hold you until you either die from the physical punishments, or from old age. All they have to tell anyone is that you are a "Domestic Terrorist" and thats the end of it...and you. There is no Habeus Corpus for terrorists.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2009)

olosto said:


> Listen nutjob. Was the space very confined like WTC? No? Hmmm
> 
> Was it hit by a fucking plane high up in its structure? No? No sheared supports from impact? No 10 floors above it pressing down with cut and comprimised reinforcements? No? Hmm...
> 
> ...


And here we go again, completely and totally sidestepping the question and the whole issue. Ostlo you do know 3 ( THREE) buildings all mysteriously fell that day right? Or were you oblivious to this fact? Well Im waiting for your answer.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 16, 2009)

olosto said:


> The stuff that happens with comets and such is much much hotter.. This only needed to impart about 700 degrees of temp to completey render the steel useless at a strustural component. That is in addition to the 1000 degrees plus that gas fire provided.
> 
> I am glad tho that you have finally come around to admitting that the impact of the jet and the fire caused the collapse of the building.
> 
> ...





olosto said:


> Wait, did someone say it lost 100% of its rigidity at 1000f or are you just making shit up again. There was a chart posted that showed the loss of stregnth at 1000f. I believe it was about 50%..
> 
> Stop making shit up or using half truths.. You will be much more creditable..
> 
> ...


Who do you think is making shit up? YOU THATS WHO. were using your own words against you, you contradict yourself when you say that 700 degrees is all it takes to render steel totally useless as a structural component, IE it can no longer keep its shape or hold any kind of weight.

THEN you come back and say it loses 50% of its strength at 1000. well which is it, which fact do you want to stick with?

FWIW Jets do not burn AVgas, have you not been reading most of the posts? do you even know what AVgas is?

Go dump fuel on a piece of steel, light it on fire and time how long it "RAGES". bet you it won't last more than a couple of minutes. If the fuel is as volatile and hot burning as you say it is, even if it survives the initial fireball, it still isn't going to keep burning indefinitely you know.

Oh one other thing, when you start labeling people as "Nutjob" fuck head, shit for brains tin hat wearer, whatever the name calling, you just become that fat mean kid on the playground that no one would play with.... ohh and you lose all credibility for the remainder of your posts, go find somewhere else to spew your fallacies.


----------



## olosto (Jun 16, 2009)

This only needed to impart about 700 degrees of temp to completey render the steel useless at a strustural component. That is *in addition to the 1000 degrees plus* that gas fire provided.


I get 1700 degrees when I add that up.. If I was unclear, bite me.. 

Perhaps its your reading comprehension...

I also cited the chart posted previously. No mystery there, don't try to make something that isn't there into something..

Pardon my avgas reference, instead of jet-a. I get avgas sometimes and it was a slip, my bad, no big deal.. Does not mean the gubberment has me on thir payroll... Or does it? Hmmmm


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

olosto said:


> This only needed to impart about 700 degrees of temp to completey render the steel useless at a strustural component. That is *in addition to the 1000 degrees plus* that gas fire provided.
> 
> 
> I get 1700 degrees when I add that up.. If I was unclear, bite me..
> ...



OMG you are actually stating that the temperatures of the fires would combine? LMFAO , hold on gotta breathe again...cough cough...holy shit dude...that there just PROVES without a doubt you have NO idea what your talking about ...NONE...AT ALL! Wow science wasn't your strong point at all was it? Hell why don't we just combine the temperatures of every item that was different, fuel, desk, papers, trash, trash bags, airplane seat, baby bottle, dust, ....on and on near infinity..hey we could just say that all those fires added up to 1 trillion degrees centigrade, 100 times hotter than the surface of the sun. 

Well ya pretty much debunk anything you say as existing in reality, cuz only in bizarro world do you add the temperatures of all the items together to come up with a final temp.

Try looking facts up before you spew.

I don't think your on the gubber payroll, I think your probably just a very concerned citizen who loves his country and wants whoever did this to pay. I also think you bought into what the government passes off as reality when its really just propaganda. No one wants to admit that his elected officials are nothing more than tyrants and con artists. Everyone wants to believe that his country is the best, that it holds freedom above all and the rights of the citizen are rarely if ever trampled. Where Liberty is a given and a person does for himself what he wants, where he wants and how he wants as long as he brings no harm to anyone else.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 17, 2009)

I have my own opinions about this entire thing. I just have a few things to say..

If the US government didn't have any role whatsoever in any part of the 911 plot, they went completely the wrong way in investigating anything. Lies, blatant ones at that, coverups, obstructing investigators, conflicts of interest, getting rid of evidence, I mean the list goes on and on, I could probably come up with a few dozen different things the entire body of the US government royally screwed up on that day.. 

Is it ignorance, or is it on purpose? A lot of the actions the government took after the fact makes the entire thing look totally suspicious, as if they used 911 to enact all these policies and change our entire foreign policy. The Patriot Act, getting rid of HC, torture, two wars based on lies... Billions of American taxpayer dollars lost, lost to fight the wars or lost somewhere in the desert stacked in million dollar pallets... Corrupt companies given unprecidented no bid government contracts when years earlier the president of said company is the standing VP... see, shit like that just makes me raise an eyebrow and go "wait, wtf?"...

Litterally, and this is not an exaggeration, thousands of inconsistencies present in the official 911 report.

It just doesn't add up...


----------



## olosto (Jun 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> OMG you are actually stating that the temperatures of the fires would combine? LMFAO , hold on gotta breathe again...cough cough...holy shit dude...that there just PROVES without a doubt you have NO idea what your talking about ...NONE...AT ALL! Wow science wasn't your strong point at all was it? Hell why don't we just combine the temperatures of every item that was different, fuel, desk, papers, trash, trash bags, airplane seat, baby bottle, dust, ....on and on near infinity..hey we could just say that all those fires added up to 1 trillion degrees centigrade, 100 times hotter than the surface of the sun.
> 
> Well ya pretty much debunk anything you say as existing in reality, cuz only in bizarro world do you add the temperatures of all the items together to come up with a final temp.
> 
> ...


If you did not understand my post, then well, I don;t really care. You don't seem to understand alot of simple things so I will let it pass. Yes, i am saying that in addition to the 1000 plus degree fire that the impact (kenetic energy) only needed to impart 700 exrta degrees of energy and given the energetic impact, it is easily do doable. I understand that you do not have the capicity to understand and that is why you are so willing to accept the far fetched. To you it all has the same probability because you understand none of it. Its ok,


----------



## olosto (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm sorry for the uncalled for name calling, my bad!


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 17, 2009)

olosto said:


> If you did not understand my post, then well, I don;t really care. You don't seem to understand alot of simple things so I will let it pass. Yes, i am saying that in addition to the 1000 plus degree fire that the impact (kenetic energy) only needed to impart 700 exrta degrees of energy and given the energetic impact, it is easily do doable. I understand that you do not have the capicity to understand and that is why you are so willing to accept the far fetched. To you it all has the same probability because you understand none of it. Its ok,



No, you dont seem to understand basic physics. You think that extra 700 is that "easy" to obtain? Hahaha! Just missing one key element... A pure compound! Its IMPOSSIBLE for a fire to reach those temps without the aid of pure compound, thus making a _controlled burn_. Without a pure compound max temps can only reach 1400, which is well under the threshold to melt steel. Idont see why people keep bringing up the fire..... What fire? I see no effin fire!


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

Take your fist and punch your hand into your other hand. Did your hand catch on fire? did it even get warm? NO! The kinetic energy from the plane was not enough to raise the temperature of anything even 1 degree, even if it did impart 700 degrees of heat, the heat would be gone as soon as the plane stopped crashing, so less than 1/10 of a second, not even going to be enough time to start any kind of a heat related disaster. You have to get off the kinetic energy caused friction bandwagon, its not good science, the plane was not traveling fast enough to do shit, 500 MPH is not fast, it is very very slow. 186,000 miles per second is fast.

Steel is like a big heat sink, when it gets hot the heat travels throughout the steel structure, it doesn't stay localized to the source. Prove it to yourself, take a large frying pan and put it on the smallest burner you have. crank the burner up to high then come back and see if the pan got hot where it wasn't touching the burner. hot isn't it? its called conduction, and steel does it very well.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 17, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> No, you dont seem to understand basic physics. You think that extra 700 is that "easy" to obtain? Hahaha! Just missing one key element... A pure compound! Its IMPOSSIBLE for a fire to reach those temps without the aid of pure compound, thus making a _controlled burn_. Without a pure compound max temps can only reach 1400, which is well under the threshold to melt steel. Idont see why people keep bringing up the fire..... What fire? I see no effin fire!


So again, how do house fires incinerate bone? All of those pure compounds in the basement?

Do you know how long a thermite reaction lasts?

Why was ground zero the longest burning structural fire in history?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html

Still burning in December. I am just curious how a balmy 800 degree jet A fire burns for 3 months. 







PadawanBater:

The manipulation of the people because of the events I take no argument against. 



huffy420 said:


> Simple, No need for thermite on the top 25% of the building... It just took a jet impact lol! Thermite used in the basement on the vertical columns (see pic in above post) and prolly at the buildings main joints (towers made in 3 sections). From the words of a demo expert, "You blow its base, and put it in its footprint".
> 
> See that big ass fire ball???? THERE IS ALL YOUR JET FUEL!! How hard is this to see people?


Top 25%? Pretty damned small margin for the paths taken by radio control to be accurate don't you think? See how off they were? @ 25% a couple of floors really makes a difference. 

That and you can clearly see, in ANY video here, that it was destroyed from the point of impact downwards. 



huffy420 said:


> Yes I agree its probably really hot 1000F easy.... but that fire ball isnt going to stay that intense that long. Its going to burn up real fuckin fast. Its just like striking an oxy-acetylene torch full blast and holding to steel for a brief moment then backing it off to a small dirty burn (aka office fire), but just on a smaller scale.... To effectively weaken steel you need intense heat for a LONGER period of time the a matter of seconds, also dont forget the steel is coated in fireproofing!!! For me to cut 1 inch steel (towers had 3 and 4 inch steel) with a torch at work you have to preheat the steel for atleast 30-45 seconds!! Think of what it takes to heat up 4 inch steel. This torch burns as high as 3400C. WAY hotter then a jet fuel fire ball for a few seconds then simmers down to a smolder in 30 min. Im sorry I have way too much knowledge in this field. Its impossible for me to believe FIRE (a weiner cookin fire at that) brought those towers down.


So the bridge fire... that 20 minute open air gas fire which melted steel... It is your contention that jet A burns FASTER than gasoline? So the fireball from the tanker explosion is "sticky"... but the jet fuel... it was more like lighting hairspray?

Would these be the fundamental physics I don't grasp?



huffy420 said:


> Thermite is soley used by the military. So, being that the miltary doesnt demo buildings its going to be hard to find your written docs.


The military uses thermite for "stuff". Not controlled demo. Military uses them in grenades to damage artillery. 

Military demos buildings all the time.

There is more civilian use of thermite than military... and yet... demolitions experts don't use thermite for controlled demo either... why is that exactly do you suppose? I mean... it is cheap as hell... you don't even need a permit to obtain or use it... you can carry the components unmixed without danger... why don't demo experts use it?


I know the answer... do you?







Riddle me how thermite does that.

Would this be the pancaking that didn't happen?









Now drama... can you please give me your estimate before I continue?



And if anyone else is bored... I would love to know the purpose for a controlled demo of 7?

I mean... they just pulled 6. What is the point? Why take the risk of exposition in a pointless demo? I think the big towers were enough of an exclamation point. Why even bother?

Occams razor anyone?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> And if anyone else is bored... I would love to know the purpose for a controlled demo of 7?
> 
> I mean... they just pulled 6. What is the point? Why take the risk of exposition in a pointless demo? I think the big towers were enough of an exclamation point. Why even bother?
> 
> Occams razor anyone?



You want me to speculate on the motives? Hardly provable, I won't get sucked into that one.

And you want me to estimate how much explosive it takes to bring a building down? I am not a building demolitions expert and cannot attest to the amounts needed. If you want to know how much it takes to remove a tank/APC/Aircraft out of service or if you need to take the top off a hill to create a heli landing area I can give good info on that. I have never blown up a skyscraper so Again I do not care to speculate. I do know its probably much less than you think, since not every floor needs to be dealt with. Perhaps you can fill us in on how much it would need, it already seems like you have an answer ready, please provide factual evidence and not some guess.


----------



## olosto (Jun 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I am not a building demolitions expert and cannot attest to the amounts needed.


Ok, thanks!


----------



## olosto (Jun 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Take your fist and punch your hand into your other hand. Did your hand catch on fire? did it even get warm? NO! The kinetic energy from the plane was not enough to raise the temperature of anything even 1 degree, even if it did impart 700 degrees of heat, the heat would be gone as soon as the plane stopped crashing, so less than 1/10 of a second, not even going to be enough time to start any kind of a heat related disaster. You have to get off the kinetic energy caused friction bandwagon, its not good science, the plane was not traveling fast enough to do shit, 500 MPH is not fast, it is very very slow. 186,000 miles per second is fast.
> 
> Steel is like a big heat sink, when it gets hot the heat travels throughout the steel structure, it doesn't stay localized to the source. Prove it to yourself, take a large frying pan and put it on the smallest burner you have. crank the burner up to high then come back and see if the pan got hot where it wasn't touching the burner. hot isn't it? its called conduction, and steel does it very well.


Yea.. speed of light is not close to 500 mph but that does not mean the effect is nothing. I don't really know what the purpose of throwing out the speed of light is..

And if you do not understand how kinetic energy works I cannot help you there either. Tremendous amounts of kinetic energy were released when the planes impaced the buildings. If you truely think that little friction or kinetic energy was imparted into the building (heat) then we are at an impass. I am talking about something that is standard physics and you can only say, I don't know physics.. Well, your wrong.. Not going to get into a pissing contest about it but your wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
Examples
Spacecraft use chemical energy to take off and gain considerable kinetic energy to reach orbital velocity. This kinetic energy gained during launch will remain constant while in orbit because there is almost no friction. However it becomes apparent at re-entry when the kinetic energy is converted to heat.
Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player gives kinetic energy to the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it will slow down dramatically and the ball it collided with will accelerate to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, where (by definition) kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated as: heat, sound, binding energy (breaking bound structures), or other kinds of energy.


----------



## olosto (Jun 17, 2009)

Also using the calculations onthat page and on another I found you can calculate the kinetic energy that the impact had. 200,000 lbs (a guess) and 500 mph are huge forces to start with....


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 17, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I have my own opinions about this entire thing. I just have a few things to say..
> 
> If the US government didn't have any role whatsoever in any part of the 911 plot, they went completely the wrong way in investigating anything. Lies, blatant ones at that, coverups, obstructing investigators, conflicts of interest, getting rid of evidence, I mean the list goes on and on, I could probably come up with a few dozen different things the entire body of the US government royally screwed up on that day..
> 
> ...


 That's right! I was thinking bout this and you know what? The "truthers" are here asking questions? They/we feel somethings fishy. We have nothing to go on but common sense, past history, connect the dots, gut instinct, science. We have some strong arguments but not as strong as the gov has agianst itself.
I've never really understood why ppl come here who believe the 911 commision. I mean if you believe the official story why come here and argue this stuff? and when you do why not just link the 911 commision sources for your arguments. Seems like they know more than the 911 commision does and are trying to tell us something? 

False flags come and go. We know of alot thru history. Is 911 one? I don't know or claim to know. What's more important to me is not the events themselves but ppls willingness to believe everything they are told. 

Quick poll!! How many of the 911 truthers believed the official story in the weeks months years after? I know I did. Call me nutjob,wacko or whatever. Just remember those are your words and if you believe that I beg the question. Why are you wasting your time with a nutjob?


----------



## olosto (Jun 17, 2009)

Was it hot nuff.. is 2000 degrees enough?


Flame temperatures in room fires

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.

This is for a standard fire not one caused by thousands of gallons of fuel and no to mention the energy of impact hen the plane with the building.. 
And....


Flames temperatures of open flames

For convenience, we can subdivide the turbulent diffusion flames from unwanted fires into two types: flames in the open, and room fires. First we will consider open flames. 

The starting point for discussing this topic can be the work of the late Dr. McCaffrey, who made extensive measurements [4] of temperatures in turbulent diffusion flames. He used gas burners in a "pool fire" mode (i.e., non-premixed) and studied various characteristics of such fire plumes. He described three different regimes in such a fire plume:
Slightly above the base of the fire begins the _continuous flame_ region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.
Above the solid flame region is the _intermittent flame_ region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.
Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height.
French researchers at the University of Poitiers recently made the same types of measurements and reported numerical values [5] indistinguishable from McCaffrey's. Cox and Chitty [6] measured similar plumes and obtained very similar results: a temperature of 900°C in the continuous flame region, and a temperature of around 340°C at the flame tips. The latter value does not appear to be a universal constant. Cox and Chitty later measured slightly higher heat release rate fires, and found a flame tip temperature of around 550°C. In a later paper [7], researchers from the same laboratory examined turbulent diffusion flames under slightly different conditions, and found peak values of 1150-1250°C for natural gas flames, which is rather higher than 900°C. The above results were from fires of circular or square fuel shape. Yuan and Cox [8] measured line-source type fires. They found a temperature of 898°C in the continuous flame region, and a flame tip temperature of around 340°C. This suggests that such results are not dependent on the shape of the fuel source. 
In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry, Ingason [9] found an average solid-flame temperature of 870°C. At the visible flame tips, the average temperature was 450°C, but the range was large, covering 300~600°C. In a related study, Ingason and de Ris [10] found typical flame tip temperatures of 400°C for burner flames of propane, propylene, and carbon monoxide fuels. Sullivan et al. [14] cite Australian studies on wildfire flames, finding that flame tip temperature corresponds to 300°C, while peak values around 927°C can be expected. Heskestad [11] adopts a criterion of 500°C _rise_ as defining the flame tip temperature, i.e. an actual temperature of about 520°C. Taking all of the above information in account, it appears that flame tip temperatures for turbulent diffusion flames should be estimated as being around 320~400°C. For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C.

Note this is all in C? 1200 c = 2192 F


Cite: http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

(Non political I might add...)


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 17, 2009)

You want me to speculate on the motives? Hardly provable, I won't get sucked into that one.


An interesting take for someone who begins most of their posts with "Why would", "Why did", and "How could". 

I also note that that is below the "just for fun" portion I put in suggesting that it was just mental masturbation and didn't really require an answer.



NoDrama said:


> And you want me to estimate how much explosive it takes to bring a building down? I am not a building demolitions expert and cannot attest to the amounts needed.


No... but you are a munitions expert.



NoDrama said:


> Your right I am a munitions expert, I was a combat engineer in the Govt service and have blown up many things with many different types of explosives.


And I am asking the ammount of ordinance required to achieve a task. Surely a munitions expert could make a rough guess.


Surely.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> So again, how do house fires incinerate bone?


See here folks ... he brings up bullshit that has already been discredited 10 or 15 pages ago ... I've provided info and a link that proves house fires can't incinerate bones ... cremation temperatures are way hotter. This is part of their spin ... they can't fight with facts so they make shit up even when they are busted doing it ... they will continue to do it ... that's how their leaders do it ... so they figure it will work here ... but it doesn't ... no one in their right mind buys the government bullshit story.




what... huh? said:


> Why was ground zero the longest burning structural fire in history?
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html


All this does is discredit your bullshit ... this is more evidence that something other than plane impact and office fires brought those towers down.



what... huh? said:


> So the bridge fire... that 20 minute open air gas fire which melted steel...


We've already established the fact that there was nothing unusual about that bridge fire ... and once again you contradict yourself ... in your post ....



what... huh? said:


> Yes... and nobody is claiming that the steel was melted.


See folks he's not consistent in his argument ... his main purpose is to double talk and try to confuse the issue. ... he sees how it works on fauxnews and all the bushwhack are desperate for it to work here ... but it's not going to happen.



what... huh? said:


> The military uses thermite for "stuff". Not controlled demo. Military uses them in grenades to damage artillery.


and the fact that the military are the only ones with access to nano thermite that can't be made in some cave ... is another indication 911 was an inside job.



what... huh? said:


> Would this be the pancaking that didn't happen?


More proof of thermite as far as I'm concerned.
Once again you fail to convince anyone that the obvious didn't happen.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 17, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> No, you dont seem to understand basic physics. You think that extra 700 is that "easy" to obtain? Hahaha! Just missing one key element... A pure compound! Its IMPOSSIBLE for a fire to reach those temps without the aid of pure compound, thus making a _controlled burn_. Without a pure compound max temps can only reach 1400, which is well under the threshold to melt steel. Idont see why people keep bringing up the fire..... What fire? I see no effin fire!



I have demonstrated, from more than 3 independent accredited sources that steel looses half of its rigidity at 1000 degrees.

I have demonstrated that a gas fire, which also is incapable of reaching 2700 degrees, melted structural steel of similar size in half of the time, from more than 4 accredited sources including the CA state government. 

"He beats his fists against the posts yet still insists he sees 6 ghosts"


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 17, 2009)

What temp does a fire have to get for steel to lose 50% of its strength can somebody tell me this ?


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 17, 2009)

How hot were the fires in the towers?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I have demonstrated, from more than 3 independent accredited sources that steel looses half of its rigidity at 1000 degrees.


bwaa ha ha ha ... see how he continues to make shit up folks? We keep telling him that the steel was treated with fireproof material ...you saw the construction pictures ... you really believe a plane impact and fire can bring down all that fireproofed reinforced steel? ... but he continues to spin, because that's all he's capable of doing ... but never fear ... I will continue to make him look 




what... huh? said:


> I have demonstrated that a gas fire, which also is incapable of reaching 2700 degrees, melted structural steel of similar size in half of the time, from more than 4 accredited sources including the CA state government.


Bwaa ha ha ... don't you just love how he makes shit up ... there was nothing unusual about the bridge fire ... no questions about it ... no accusations ... no evidence other than it was an accident ... we keep telling him the bridge bullshit don't fly ... yet he continues to use it as prove ... even though it's been discredited.




what... huh? said:


> "He beats his fists against the posts yet still insists he sees 6 ghosts"


This guy is beating his head folks ... he believe if he beats it enough we will begin to buy his bullshit. Too bad that's not going to happen.


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 17, 2009)

When these planes hit the buildings did they blow off all the fire proofing material?


How man gallons of Jet fuel were they carrying?


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 17, 2009)

olosto said:


> This is for a standard fire not one caused by thousands of gallons of fuel and no to mention the energy of impact hen the plane with the building..



Dude for the last time.... all your THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel burned up in a mere 2 seconds. *What other flammable material could of made the giant fire ball? *Since you seem to believe these towers were completely drenched...

And to add to the point, according to the architects and engineers who designed the towers, these buildings were designed to withstand several commercial jet impacts. They also had the ability to flex and sway to deal with high winds coming in from the Atlantic. Go and research yourself, Ive already done it.





olosto said:


> researchers from the same laboratory examined turbulent diffusion flames under slightly different conditions, and found peak values of 1150-1250°C for natural gas flames, which is rather higher than 900°C.



READ CAREFULLY(seeing you obviously cant read your own "facts" before you post them)

You see that word in red there it says......*natural gas*...... okay, did it sink in yet? Now, when you add natural gas (mostly methane) to a fire, you now what what we call a _*controlled burn*_..... Are you still following? Cuz im getting tired of retyping it... When you move from a uncontrolled burn (i.e jet impact to building) to a controlled burn (introduction of pressurized gas/pure compound i.e. oxygen, natural gas, acetylene), this is the only way to reach 1200 celsius as your post stated above.





olosto said:


> Note this is all in C? 1200 c = 2192 F
> 
> 
> Cite: http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html


Good work on the conversion thats about the only thing you got right out of your whole post 




mexiblunt said:


> Quick poll!! How many of the 911 truthers believed the official story in the weeks months years after?


I never believed the Official Story, I was a junior in high school, walked into 1st period history and the first tower had already been hit. Then I saw Bushs reaction (in Florida reading to some kids i think), S.S. agent walks up to him, delivers news,......nothing.... no reaction, just a nod and back to reading the fuckin book!!! As if rehearsed.... 

IF OUR COUNTRY'S NATIONAL SECURITY IS UNDER SUCH THREAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE EVACUATED *IMMEDIATLEY*! Not givin the chance to finish "See Spot Run" or whatever we was attempting to read. 

Then he later stated "I stood in the hall and watched the first tower hit on the t.v." OOOOPS.... No one saw the first plane hit! Unless you were in the financial district of manhattan...


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (Jun 17, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Dude for the last time.... all your THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel burned up in a mere 2 seconds. *What other flammable material could of made the giant fire ball? *Since you seem to believe these towers were completely drenched...
> 
> And to add to the point, according to the architects and engineers who designed the towers, these buildings were designed to withstand several commercial jet impacts. They also had the ability to flex and sway to deal with high winds coming in from the Atlantic. Go and research yourself, Ive already done it.
> 
> ...


Let's see, he's reading a book to a bunch of kids.

The attacks are underway...

I'm thinking that perhaps the idea was to finish the book (which couldn't possibly have taken more than 30 minutes.)

Bush is not superman. He wasn't about to drop the book, rush into a janitorial closet and emerge to fly to NY in mere seconds to stop the attacks and blow out the fire by flying around the building really fast creating a tornado-like vortex to starve the flames of air.

What do you think he could have done?

And then there's the issue of having to know what he was actually told (in all of what, 5 seconds? 30 seconds?) by the person that was speaking to him.

The fact is that we ultimately are all speculating as to what the truth was/is.


----------



## dgittings (Jun 17, 2009)

I don't know if anyone mentioned a video called 'core of corruption'. After watching video it's almost too much to think that the government didn't have anytheing to do with it. If you still believe that our govt is for the people watch this video, really.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

dgittings said:


> I don't know if anyone mentioned a video called 'core of corruption'. After watching video it's almost too much to think that the government didn't have anytheing to do with it. If you still believe that our govt is for the people watch this video, really.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4874421830690006054


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> Let's see, he's reading a book to a bunch of kids.
> 
> The attacks are underway...
> 
> ...


According to Bush himself, he actually WATCHED the first plane hit the first tower, then he went to read to the kids, he was well aware that the towers were in distress before going into the classroom. Never mind that NO ONE saw the plane hit the first tower on TV, the video was not aired until the NEXT day. So he is either lying or he really did see it happen, and the only way to see it happen is if you already knew it was going to happen. either way he is culpable.


FWIW. More people are killed by peanuts each year than all americans have been killed by terrorists in 250 years. Im not scared of terrorists, they are not a threat.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

The kinetic energy transferred to the building was not converted into heat, it was converted into kinetic energy on the building, the building supposedly swayed almost 2 feet when it was hit, literally soaking up all that energy. Oh its designed to sway up to 6 feet total if really high winds are acting upon it. So basically the plane hitting it was less energy imparted than it deals with year in and year out with high wind loads.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

natrone23 said:


> How hot were the fires in the towers?


Absolutley no one knows for sure what the temps were, because no tests were done to verify that fact while it was happening. 

You can tell its not a very hot fire though, as evidenced by the yellow flames. Yellow/orange flames are the coolest flames, your going to spend a bunch of time trying to heat steel up enough to melt with yellow flames. in fact it will never happen, they just don't get hot enough. Yellow and red flames are normally in the 650-800C temperatures while blue flames ( From Methane gas) are normally 900-1100C. See any blue flames from any of the 3 buildings? or do you just see red and yellow?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 17, 2009)

Bush is a liar

[youtube]Sm73wOuPL60[/youtube]





Why did Bush and Cheney meet with the 9/11 commission privately? why is that the only way Bush would talk to them?

9/11 is BULLSHIT... that's all there is too is


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 17, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> What do you think he could have done?
> 
> And then there's the issue of having to know what he was actually told (in all of what, 5 seconds? 30 seconds?) by the person that was speaking to him.
> 
> The fact is that we ultimately are all speculating as to what the truth was/is.


The fact that the dog didn't bark is also an indication that 911 was an inside job ... they should have hustled bush out immediately ... how did they know bush wasn't in any danger?
And we wouldn't have to speculate if the government had a public non partisan investigation were witnesses had to testify under oath ... not the kangaroo court ... dog and pony show that took place ... if they do that it would end all speculation now wouldn't it ...but you don't see them doing that and most of us know why.

Here something interesting I want to put up for the record.
Danish scientist Niels Harrit on nano thermite in the WTC dust english subtitles
[youtube]o44hoYVahJk[/youtube]
On the morning of April the 6th, Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, who is an expert in nano-chemistry, was interviewed for an entire 10 minutes during a news program on the topic of the nano-thermite found in the dust from the World Trade Centre, (WTC).  
During this news report, Harrit, who is one of the nine scientists primarily responsible for the pivotal paper entitled: *Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe*, talks about how their research, which was conducted over 18 months, led to the conclusion that planes did not cause the collapse of the three buildings at the WTC on 9/11.
He says that they found such large quantities of nano-thermite in the dust from the WTC, that he believes that this compound, which has the ability to melt metal, must have been brought into the WTC site in tonnes, on pallets. Consequently, he suggests that we need to address this matter with those who were in charge of the security at the World Trade Centre on 9/11.
Harrit, like Dr Steven Joneswho also played a major role in this ground-breaking research, refers to their findings as the loaded gun and suggests that military personnel might be able to enlighten us more on the little-known topic of nano-thermite, which differs from regular thermite in a number of significant ways, including that its ignition temperature is far lower than that of the conventional kind, [1].
*Related:*http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM[1]. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophy 
Here is the transcript of the 10 min. interview ...
International researchers have found traces of explosives amoung the WTC rubble. *A new scientific article concludes that impacts from the two hijacked aircraft did not cause the collapses in 2001.*
*Interviewer*: We turn our attention to 9/11 - the major attack in New York.
Apparently the two airplane - impacts did not cause the towers to collapse, according to a newly published scientific article. Researchers found nano-thermite explosive in the rubble, that cannot have come from the planes.
They believe several tons of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance.
Niels Harrit, you and eight other researchers conclude in this article that it was nano-thermite that caused these building to collapse. What is nano-thermite?

*Harrit:* We found nano-thermite in the rubble. We are not saying only nano-thermite was used. Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 C. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. Nanotechnology makes things smaller. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive.
It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

*Interviewer*: I Googled nano-thermite, and not much has been written about it. Is it a widely known scientific substance? Or is it so new that other scientists are hardly aware of it?

*Harrit:* It is a collective name for substances with high levels of energy. If civilian researchers (like myself) are not familiar with it, it is probably because they do not do much work with explosives.
As for military scientists, you would have to ask them. I do not know how familiar they are with nanotechnology.

*Interviewer*: So you found this substance in the WTC, why do you think it caused the collapses?

*Harrit:* Well, it's an explosive. Why else would it be there?

*Interviewer:* You believe the intense heat melted the building's steel support structure, and caused the building to collapse like a house of cards?

*Harrit:* I cannot say precisely, ad this substance can serve both purposes. It can explode and break things apart, and it can melt things. Both effects were probably used, as I see it.
*Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse*. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives come into play. The actual collapse sequence had to be perfectly timed, all the way down.

*Interviewer*: What quantities are we talking about?

*Harrit: *A lot. There were only two planes, but three skyscrapers collapsed. We know roughly how much dust was created. The pictures show huge quantities, everything but the steel was pulverised. And we know roughly how much unreacted thermite we have found. This is the "loaded gun", material that did not ignite for some reason. We are talking about tons. Over 10 tons, possibly 100 tons.
*
Interviewer:* Ten tons, possibly 100 tons in three buildings? And these substances are not normally found in such buildings?

*Harrit:* No. These materials are extremely advanced.

*Interviewer:* How do you place such material in a skyscraper, on all the floors? How you would get it in? 

*Harrit:* Yes. If I had to transport it in those quantities I would use pallets. Get a truck and move it in on pallets.

*Interviewer:* Why hasn't this been discovered earlier?

*Harrit:* By whom?

*Interviewer:* The caretakers, for example. If you are moving 10 to 100 tons of nano-thermite around, and placing it on all the floors. I am just surprised no-one noticed.

*Harrit:* As a journalist, you should address that question to the company responsible for the security at the WTC.

*Interviewer:* So you are in no doubt the material was present?

*Harrit:* *You cannot fudge this kind of science. * We have found it. Unreacted thermite.
*Interviewer:* What responses has your article received around the world?
*
Harrit:* It is completely new knowledge for me. It was only published last Friday. So it is too early to say. But the article may not be as groundbreaking as you think. *Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, have long known that the three buildings were demolished. * This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the "smoking gun", it is the "loaded gun". Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. That is something unstoppable.

*Interviewer:* Why had no-one discovered earlier that there was nano-thermite in the buildings? Almost ten years have passed.

*Harrit:* You mean in the dust?

*Interviewer:* Yes.
*
Harrit: *It was by chance that someone looked at the dust with a microscope. They are tiny red chips. The biggest are 1 mm in size, and can be seen with the naked eye. But you need a microscope to see the vast majority. It was by chance that someone discovered them two years ago. *It has taken 18 months to prepare the scientific article you refer to. It is a very comprehensive article based on thorough research.*
*
Interviewer:* You have been working on this for several years, because it didn't make sense to you.
*
Harrit:* Yes, over two years actually. It all started when I saw the collapse of Building 7, the third skyscraper. It collapsed seven hours after the twin towers. And there were only two airplanes. When you see a 47-story building, 186m tall, collapse in 6.5 seconds, and you are a scientist, you think *"what?".* I had to watch it again ... and again. I hit the button 10 times, and my jaw dropped lower and lower. Firstly, I had never heard of that building before. And there was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way, straight down, in 6.5 seconds. I have had no rest since that day.

*Interviewer:* Ever since 9/11 there has been speculation, and conspiracy therories. What do you say to viewers who hear about your research and say, "we've heard it all before, there are lots of conspiracy theories". What would you say to convince them that this is different?
*
Harrit:* I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving 19 hijackers. *I think viewers should ask themselves what evidence they have seen to support the official conspiracy theory.* If anyone has seen evidence, I would like to hear about it. No-one has been formally charged. No-one is "wanted". *Our work should lead to demands for a proper criminal investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Because it never happened. We are still waiting for it. *We hope our results will be used as technical evidence when that day comes.
So are these guys nut jobs too?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

Of course they are nutjobs, anyone who believes in science and fact is a"NutJob". The people who believe whatever their gubbermint tells them and live in a fairyland where the USA is the good guy and anyone else is the bad guy are the "Normal" people. The nutjobs sometimes refer to the normal people as "Sheep" because they make bleating noises when they try to argue against scientifically proven facts.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 17, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The fact that the dog didn't bark is also an indication that 911 was an inside job ... they should have hustled bush out immediately ... how did they know bush wasn't in any danger?
> And we wouldn't have to speculate if the government had a public non partisan investigation were witnesses had to testify under oath ... not the kangaroo court ... dog and pony show that took place ... if they do that it would end all speculation now wouldn't it ...but you don't see them doing that and most of us know why.



Great Post Bro!!

The president must not be an important person compared to the Vice president. During the attacks VP cheney was rushed off to a bunker. but poor Georgie puddin pie was left to get blowed the fuck up while he listened to little red riding hood.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You want me to speculate on the motives? Hardly provable, I won't get sucked into that one.
> 
> 
> An interesting take for someone who begins most of their posts with "Why would", "Why did", and "How could".
> ...




I guess that got lost in the fury.


----------



## olosto (Jun 18, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Dude for the last time.... all your THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel burned up in a mere 2 seconds. *What other flammable material could of made the giant fire ball? *Since you seem to believe these towers were completely drenched...


utter bullshit. Yup big fireball. Not all of the gas, look at other plane crashes. BTW i provided cites and you just say, no thats not what happened. Sorry buddy, your going to need to back up your shit with references. Untill then, u fail...



> And to add to the point, according to the architects and engineers who designed the towers, these buildings were designed to withstand several commercial jet impacts. They also had the ability to flex and sway to deal with high winds coming in from the Atlantic. Go and research yourself, Ive already done it.


Really because I have 2 examples that say the building falls...






> READ CAREFULLY(seeing you obviously cant read your own "facts" before you post them)
> 
> You see that word in red there it says......*natural gas*...... okay, did it sink in yet? Now, when you add natural gas (mostly methane) to a fire, you now what what we call a _*controlled burn*_..... Are you still following? Cuz im getting tired of retyping it... When you move from a uncontrolled burn (i.e jet impact to building) to a controlled burn (introduction of pressurized gas/pure compound i.e. oxygen, natural gas, acetylene), this is the only way to reach 1200 celsius as your post stated above.


I never asserted that it said jet fuel. YOU made that *ass*umption. I was giving a cite from house fires that also talked about natural gas... It is a similar fuel for our arguments sake tho.. I was correct here.. The temps talked about here are well over the temps people have stated as fact that are not reachable in a building fire. Im going to assert that if these people have their info so wrong about how hot the fire got, what other so called facts that they are throwing around are total bullshit? Hmm....




> Good work on the conversion thats about the only thing you got right out of your whole post


Really? Because you have not offered proof of any of your rebuttals to my post. Just gum flapping..


----------



## olosto (Jun 18, 2009)

One more thing.. Are you familiar with a furnace?


Ok 2 more things, lol. Prove to me that somehow thousands of gallons of fuel all ignited and not a single drop was left after the impact.. Just proof pls..


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 18, 2009)

All the proof I will EVER NEED to debunk all you conspiranuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4

And the palestinians doing thier thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

But, possibly, the whole time we have been there, almost a decade now, plotted, mapped, gps's terrain. 

We got to know the sand very well I think, if it pops off, we should be at the ready. 

Axis country's now. 

Trouble is not from within USA. NWO, FEMA Camps, Globalization. All Utter Crap. 

We need to stand together, not divided. 

A people divided is no people at all. 

We need to stand together as a nation, a world, a people, White, Black, Hebrews, Islamics, China, Japan, UK. 

They seem have one hope. A bomb. I know the rest of the country in iraq, iran, doesnt share the ideals of the tyrants running Arabia. 

We have everything here with us, Freedom, Love, and Compassion for everybody and our nieghbors. Don't worry about the economy. I have to struggle as well some months, but I know, they are doing thier job at the Fed Res, they WILL NOT allow us to fail, and I will do my best not to fail my country and people and fellow growers alike. 

Cmon, we need to stop fighting each other. 

Stop the conspiracy, please, it's a fallacy. Think of the families and children of 2001. NEVER FORGET.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 18, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> All the proof I will EVER NEED to debunk all you conspiranuts.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4
> 
> ...


The only proof you offer is that you fail for the bullshit. And please enlighten us ... what the hell does Iran have to do with 911? And we are the nuts? bwaa ha ha ha ... now that's funny.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 18, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The only proof you offer is that you fail for the bullshit. And please enlighten us ... what the hell does Iran have to do with 911? And we are the nuts? bwaa ha ha ha ... now that's funny.


Youre kidding me right, cmon. You can't be serious.

Please, tell me what adminedjid are beating into thier heads.

Its an interconnected unit over there. 

Syria, Lebanon, Bagdad, Iraq, Iran. All for one and one for all bro. And there is ALOT of them, with North Korea on thier side, possibly russia, if the game of Risk goes too far bro. 

Your head will be shoved so far up your bootie on this conspiracy, you will lose sight of what's really happening around us. 

I wont believe it for one second. Our own people don't deserve to be humiliated. Look at what kind of laughing stock you are making us. I think its humiliating our own people. A waste of energy on nonsense.


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 18, 2009)

How is that any different than "Bomb Bomb BOmb. Bomb Bomb Iran" Sung by john mcain. No he is not the pres but he tried.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 18, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Bush is a liar
> 
> [youtube]Sm73wOuPL60[/youtube]
> 
> ...


thanks much for putting this up ... It's great for the record. bush and the rest of them knew what was going on ... that's why the SS didn't get him out and to a secure place ... they knew he wasn't in any danger. Only us peons had something to fear during their *false flag attack.* bush and cheney were allowed to testify in private so they could lie their asses off with no repercussions ... I bet they didn't even discuss 911 ... probably talked about their golf game or hunting ... lol ... that's why that whole 911 commission was total bullshit ... no one had to testify under oath ... nothing more than a dog and pony show ... keep both parties out and have a real investigation ... that will be the *ONLY* thing that will stop us so called nutjobs.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 18, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> thanks much for putting this up ... It's great for the record. bush and the rest of them knew what was going on ... that's why the SS didn't get him out and to a secure place ... they knew he wasn't in any danger. Only us peons had something to fear during their *false flag attack.* bush and cheney were allowed to testify in private so they could lie their asses off with no repercussions ... I bet they didn't even discuss 911 ... probably talked about their golf game or hunting ... lol ... that's why that whole 911 commission was total bullshit ... no one had to testify under oath ... nothing more than a dog and pony show ... keep both parties out and have a real investigation ... that will be the *ONLY* thing that will stop us so called nutjobs.


Cmon guys. 

No way. Doesnt happen. Bush, however sad he may have publicly appeared. Was a texan and all that bro. You dont mess with texas. Its us man. Theres no competition here. We need to recognize we are internally fighting each other in our own country. Thats exactly what the OTHER side would LOVE to see man. You see, you are playing right into thier hands. Youre almost brainwashed by the best brainwashers anywhere. 

And I dont wanna hear that Hannah Montana crap our kids may be on. But Ill take Hannah anyday over that bee they got over there. 

Dont go there man, come back down bro, please.

Ive seen alot of footage of the towers falling. Ive watched many conspiracy vids, just to watch them. Don't think for one second I wasnt compelled by that crap. But after I shed a tear, and took a breath, I know it can't be true. 

Ive seen ALOT ALOT of footage of the towers. Ill dig this one out for you that actually shows the west wall falling almost intact the WHOLE WAY DOWN. Ive seen it buckle, dont even tell me you didnt see the one where it clearly shows the tower buckling at almost 10- 15 degrees. Ive got eyes, ears, and half a brain. I know that crap isnt true.


----------



## medicineman (Jun 18, 2009)

*Texas, Texas, we don't need no stinkin texans. 2 Idiots from Texas,(BushI and II) make that 3, I forgot about Johnson, the guy who killed Kennedy, have already shoved this countries foriegn policy up the worlds ass with military might, broke the bank and created hatred of this country accross the globe. "Don't mess with Texas" should be reversed to "don't let Texas mess with the USA". If it weren't for the ignorant Texans, this country would be a lot better off. Fuck Texas.*


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 18, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> Cmon guys.
> 
> No way. Doesnt happen. Bush, however sad he may have publicly appeared. Was a texan and all that bro. You dont mess with texas. Its us man. Theres no competition here. We need to recognize we are internally fighting each other in our own country. Thats exactly what the OTHER side would LOVE to see man. You see, you are playing right into thier hands. Youre almost brainwashed by the best brainwashers anywhere.
> 
> ...


Who is the"OTHER" side?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 18, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> Youre kidding me right, cmon. You can't be serious.


No I'm not kidding ... I'm serious ... tell us what Iran has to do with 911?



snowmanexpress said:


> Please, tell me what adminedjid are beating into thier heads.


I really don't give a fuck what Ahmadinejad is beating into their heads ... I only care about seeing those truly responsible for the murder of 3000 plus people go to jail. 



snowmanexpress said:


> Its an interconnected unit over there.


Are they really? Good for them. 



snowmanexpress said:


> Syria, Lebanon, Bagdad, Iraq, Iran. All for one and one for all bro. And there is ALOT of them, with North Korea on thier side, possibly russia, if the game of Risk goes too far bro.


And they are all coming to get us right? Yawn



snowmanexpress said:


> Your head will be shoved so far up your bootie on this conspiracy, you will lose sight of what's really happening around us.


Sounds like you are the one that has lost sight ... perhaps if you hide under your bed you will feel safer?



snowmanexpress said:


> I wont believe it for one second.


... cried the brain washed ... 



snowmanexpress said:


> Our own people don't deserve to be humiliated.


The sheeple were humiliated when they bought the bullshit "official" story.




snowmanexpress said:


> Look at what kind of laughing stock you are making us.


The only ones that are being make a laughing stock of are the brain washed sheeple that accept the "official" bullshit story without question.



snowmanexpress said:


> I think its humiliating our own people. A waste of energy on nonsense.


I think it's humiliating too ... some sheeple accepting the bullshit for all these years. And it's *never* a waste of energy or nonsense to bring war criminals to justice. This thread is about 911 ... not about your fears of how "they are going to get us". Move along ... move along.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 18, 2009)

More engineers that don't buy the "official" government bullshit. My... but there are a lot of nutjobs running around ... now aren't there?

[URL="http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf"]29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11[/url]
The symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed Professional Engineer in Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the collapses totality and uniformity and the fact that the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down. The towers should have fallen with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed, writes Howard Pasternack, P.E. *These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order, *wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E.,who designs bridges in Northern California. Thats impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and ...small, short-duration fires.
_(FYI, The article is in pdf format /SR)_


_http://www.911blogger.com/node/20385_http://www.911blogger.com/node/20385http://www.911blogger.com/node/20385[URL="http://www.911blogger.com/node/20385"]Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York_[/url]_
The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11 attacks that included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document recently found in the US National Archives. In one of the scenarios, implemented on September 9, terrorists hijacked a London to New York flight, planning to blow it up with explosives over New York.
More fuel for the fire folks ... until a non partisan public investigation takes place 911 will be considered by the majority as an inside job. Nuff said.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 18, 2009)

Everyone still focuses on the 2 towers. WHAT ABOUT THE SALOMON BROS BUILDING? I want some answers from the resident sheep concerning this building. Can you explain it? Got any facts, perhaps the 911 commission says what happened to it? Anyone? I will take your continued silence on this matter as your consent that it was indeed blown up. If I hear anyone say the fires did it you will be a laughing stock, if you say the towers fell on it I will prove they did not.

Those videos of the Palestinians celebrating were most likely either coerced or taken at some other day and just edited to make it look like it. I mean its not like they have giant TV's tuned to CNN sitting out in the streets. Even if they are celebrating that certainly is not indication of guilt, if it were then that old lady is the one who did it, she is really whooping it up. EVEN if they are celebrating it I sure don't blame them, we have been warring against them since the 70's. We have many trade sanctions against Iran and don't forget we have assassinated some of their leaders previously. Now lets just say that some other country came over here, killed the pres and a few other key people then waged war against us and would not let medical aid or medicine into the country, you think you would be a little pissed? Weve been over there killing them for 40 years and you have the audacity to say THEY are the evil ones. Hey buddy that area is the cradle of civilization, you ever been to the middle east? Its funny that is what convinces you they did it. Your faith in the Federal Reserve also strikes me as funny, surely you know how money works right? Anyone that knows how it works doesn't have faith in them to fix anything, they are the ones responsible for more economic malfeasance than any entity in the history of the USA.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 18, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> An interesting take for someone who begins most of their posts with "Why would", "Why did", and "How could".
> 
> Surely.



You sir have been caught again! Not one single post made by me in this thread starts with "Why would", "Why Did" and "How Could". Not a single one.

If this were a court of law you would now be labeled as a known liar and all of your testimony would be thrown out and all future testimony would be considered lies. 

So we have proven several times now in this thread that you either 
A) don't know what your talking about.
B) Make things up to make yourself feel better.
C) lie your ass off to try and convince others that you are right

could also be 

D) You have a small Penis and winning arguments no matter how much you cheat makes it appear bigger. Kind of like Pinocchio.

I am guessing A, but I wouldn't dismiss any of the others, well except maybe D cuz thats just really ridiculous.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 18, 2009)

olosto said:


> I never asserted that it said jet fuel. YOU made that *ass*umption.


Not one time in my previous post did I mention jet fuel!! Why do you insist on making shit up?

Please show me? 

This, again, proves you:
A) make bullshit up
B) construe other people words to confuse the conversation
C) have poor reading/comprehension skills

So who's the ass again for making assumptions?



olosto said:


> I was giving a cite from house fires that also talked about natural gas... It is a similar fuel for our arguments sake tho.. I was correct here..


FAIL!! Did you just call jet fuel similar to natural gas?!? BAHAHA Ill leave this one alone

More proof that you dont know what your talking about.




olosto said:


> Are you familiar with a funace?


Yea and i guess you think its a fucking magic trick how a blast furnace burns at thousands of degrees and its made of steel at the same time, but yet it doesnt melt.. 


People called Galileo a "nutjob" when he claimed that the Earth was the one that revolved around the Sun too....


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 18, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> You sir have been caught again! Not one single post made by me in this thread starts with "Why would", "Why Did" and "How Could". Not a single one.
> 
> If this were a court of law you would now be labeled as a known liar and all of your testimony would be thrown out and all future testimony would be considered lies.


Oh... I thought... 


NoDrama said:


> Why did all the steel get removed from the site, melted down and recycled before the 911 commission was even finished with its investigation? Are we under some serious steel shortage and needed that right away? any idea why they would do that so quickly for just this one site, but not others? Perhaps its because the steel would likely show evidence of wrongdoing?


Ooops. 



NoDrama said:


> So if all other high rises that have caught fire and not fallen down, then how is it that you are trying to state that these ones somehow did?





NoDrama said:


> Hey if the fires were so fucking hot, howe come the windows didn't all blow out like they should have?


How many examples do I need to give before I am not labeled as a liar? There are plenty more.

Does this now make you a liar?



NoDrama said:


> So we have proven several times now in this thread that you either
> A) don't know what your talking about.
> B) Make things up to make yourself feel better.
> C) lie your ass off to try and convince others that you are right
> ...



Funny... seems to me you just keep calling me a liar... and avoiding the very simple questions I ask.

So... your current question is, "How many people minimum, do you suppose would HAVE to be involved in this conspiracy?"


I have also asked you to call on your munitions expertise, in conjunction with the "lots" you have demolished with explosives, how much fissile material would be required.


Oh... and Gage
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BEBFC8F0282076E0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=kjJzlcdtlkU

7:06.

In the words of Dick Cheney... "Go fuck yourself".


Now answer a question. I know it didn't go well for you last time... this wont be as bad... this is conjecture.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 18, 2009)

You said my posts began that way, you have not found a single one that begins that way, maybe in the body of the post there are questions raised, but none of the posts began with those words you said, so again your just making shit up again, and then when someone calls you on it, you try to justify it by editing my own posts in a quote to try and show it begins like that. We can all see right through you. Stop trying to make me look like you want me to look and try to discuss the issues at hand. If you have no further constructive purpose other than just to argue about whether you think you can recall facts or not you need to stop participating. Shoo, go away before I taunt you another time

As far as the Dick Cheney thing, guess what Gage never says it, the narrator does, so there ya go, you can put your foot back in your big mouth again. And you could only find 1 discrepancy in a 1 hour movie. Hell _I found 10 discrepansies in your posts in 5 minutes._

I can't answer your question I already explained why in a previous post why, try reading once in a while.

What "lots" have I demolished? I never said anything about that, again your making things up. Again try reading.I already stated WHAT I have expertise in.

How many people? How would I know? Why don't you tell me. obviously quite a few, although for the most part everyone just follows procedure and is so engulfed in the moment I doubt anyone of them know they are accomplices.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 18, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> Youre kidding me right, cmon. You can't be serious.
> 
> Please, tell me what adminedjid are beating into thier heads.
> 
> ...


I find this more wacko conspiracy theorist than any "truther" would be viewed.

Not in a million years will N Korea and Russia join with the middle east countries. Just where do you get your information? Cereal boxes? Russia is not a Communist country, N Korea is.There are only 5 commie countries in the whole world.

BTW you do Know that Baghdad is part of Iraq right? Because you specifically list all countries and then 1 city, I just get the feeling that maybe you thought it was a separate country or something.

If everyone in Iran loves *Mahmoud Ahmadinejad *so much then why are there millions of protesters in the streets disputing his election?


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 18, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> BTW you do Know that Baghdad is part of Iraq right? Because you specifically list all countries and then 1 city, I just get the feeling that maybe you thought it was a separate country or something.
> 
> If everyone in Iran loves *Mahmoud Ahmadinejad *so much then why are there millions of protesters in the streets disputing his election?


Oh good one. 

Ya, a peaceful protest right? or a vigorous debate? you choose.

Not in a million years will N Korea and Russia join with the middle east countries. Just where do you get your information? Cereal boxes? Russia is not a Communist country, N Korea is. There are only 5 commie countries in the whole world.

Right, ok.

You really have no clue.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 18, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> You said my posts began that way, you have not found a single one that begins that way, maybe in the body of the post there are questions raised, but none of the posts began with those words you said, so again your just making shit up again, and then when someone calls you on it, you try to justify it by editing my own posts in a quote to try and show it begins like that.


*beginning*

be·gin·ning [ bi gínning ] 

noun (_plural_ be·gin·nings) 
Definition: 1. *first part: *the first part or early stages of something


I guess you define the beginning as the first sentence... or word... or perhaps letter... or do you consider the framing of the box the beginning? Because you misuse the term does not mean I have mislead you. I didn't "edit" your fucking posts. I quoted you. Don't get upset at me because you are a contradictory prick.

This is weak. Your posts are getting weak, and that is unfortunate. You understood the context of my post? 

You- "I don't dane to engage in speculation as such is beneath me and should be beneath you."

Me- "Funny... you ask me to speculate all the time." 

and now you want to get into a semantic quibble over how many words into your post you ejaculate contradictions onto yourself. Fucking weak. You are better than that. Be better than that.



NoDrama said:


> As far as the Dick Cheney thing, guess what Gage never says it, the narrator does, so there ya go, you can put your foot back in your big mouth again. And you could only find 1 discrepancy in a 1 hour movie. Hell _I found 10 discrepansies in your posts in 5 minutes._



Are you serious? If someone I was preporting as the Christ of anti-conspiracy theories showed something this fundamentally dishonest in more than one source, I would give you the point and be embarrassed. You should be fucking embarrassed. This is Gages presentation. I can find you at LEAST 3 times in which he has proposed THIS EXACT presentation... which HE HAD MADE. He PAID for this. This is HIS proposal. This is HIS presentation. If he thought it were incorrect he would change it, as he does all the time.

It is my 1 discrepancy, because I did not watch more than it to determine this expert was either an idiot or a liar. I am going with liar.

The "discrepancies" you have found with my posts are all debatable, and I have not claimed to be an expert in anything. This is YOUR self imposed expert who is presenting you with lies. You figure out why... I don't care.





NoDrama said:


> I can't answer your question I already explained why in a previous post why, try reading once in a while.


You said you are not a demolitions expert. You claim, however, to be a munitions expert, and any munitions expert worth his salt knows how much ordinance it takes to achieve a result on any material they have math on. Figure out how much it would take to do a 3 story square based building. You also haven't answered why NOBODY uses thermite to demolish. Cut beams before demo? Maybe. I have seen no evidence of it.



NoDrama said:


> What "lots" have I demolished? I never said anything about that, again your making things up. Again try reading.I already stated WHAT I have expertise in.





NoDrama said:


> Your right I am a munitions expert, I was a combat engineer in the Govt service and have blown up many things with many different types of explosives.


There I go "editing" your posts again.



NoDrama said:


> How many people? How would I know? Why don't you tell me. obviously quite a few, although for the most part everyone just follows procedure and is so engulfed in the moment I doubt anyone of them know they are accomplices.


I didn't ask you how many people. I asked, how many minimum. It will require some thought. Pilots, crew, passengers, families of passengers, NTSB, ATC administrators and individual controllers who were intimately involved, the NYFD fire officials who made the critical decisions, the NYFD firemen which all saw building 7 bulging and agreed it was going to fall, Military officials, military pilots, WTC security, several ticket agents, Bush officials, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA (I include these guys because it would just be hard to pull off something of this scope without them hearing about it)... demolitions experts, engineers, modelers, eye witnesses, iron workers, smelters, all of the NIST scientists with sterling reputations who lied to cover up for the government... for starters. Cmon... gimme a number.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 18, 2009)

Am I going to be forced to define demolish for you as well?


I am not a racist, but I am very anti-semantic.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 18, 2009)

If firefighters said "We are going to have to demo 7, because it is unstable." who would have blinked?


What is the point?
^
Scary question.

"If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions."
Jules- Pulp Fiction


It appears you have.









LOL and whatnot.


(note the next paragraph which mentions the "collective myth" referred to so many times in that lying presentation)

I guess it will be hard to prove that Gage himself made his website... and therefor the information contained therein does not reflect his views. Bummer... there I go being debunked again.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 19, 2009)

HAT TRICK STEVE said:


> But it was all going on during the weeks before. Now, both towers had been contracted for a "security upgrade". Supposedly, a crew from this company (Securacom serch it) had been contracted to install a new security system. Did I mention that the owner of Securacom is none other the Ex-Pres Bush's little brother _Marvin Bush_.
> 
> Sounds like a fine time to rig a building to me. Especially when the powers down.... No door locks, no security cameras. Hell, any one of those "security engineers" had access to whatever part of the building he wanted to!


Securacom's contract ended in 1998. You are just promoting bullshit.



HAT TRICK STEVE said:


> Seems awfully fishy to me.... Construction noises, power outages, "grey dust", then a few days later we watched the rest.


Yeah. The WTC complex was just a huge glitter bomb waiting for 3 years to go off.



HAT TRICK STEVE said:


> from the elevator shafts and the internal core structure of the building, every major joint in the building could be reached and rigged with explosives without any of the working public in the offices ever seeing anything going on,.. with or without the power being off,..


You have obviously never been inside of the WTC. 







That would have been easy as shit to plant 136 gravity defying thermite bombs into. I mean... only about 30,000 people per day walked in and out of those things. Nobody would have seen them hauling in (x) tons of thermite.

Not to mention the fact that... well... you still haven't addressed why nobody uses thermite to demo buildings... esp large ones... because it is unpredictable, and irreversable. Precision demo is exactly that. Push the button, and the series goes boom. Thermite... ehhh... it goes when enough of it gets hot enough, for long enough. It also kinda works with gravity. None of you folks have addressed that.

I guess that is why I need x defined... even though it seems silly to you. I guess I want to know how you ignite it in such precision as to demo a building. I want to know how you make it cut sideways. I want to know how you drop the largest building EVER with a material so volitile that no demolitions expert in the world has ever used it to try and bring down anything in controlled... operative word... manner with it... much less the largest structure EVER to be brought down by man.

In all of your controlled demo video, you have yet to show one which used thermite. You have yet to show one, using ANY detonation, which went from the top down. *Have none of you noticed the difference in all of those videos and wtc 1&2? *In all of your babble... you fail to notice 4 key differences in this than any other demolition in history.

1. It destructs from the top down.

2. Thermite has never been used (because it sucks for the purpose... gravity and "control" both)

3. Scale. This is bigger, and was damaged differently than any structure in history.

4. It burned for over 3 months. Longer than any structure in history. Not thermite, not anything makes that happen.


Throw me a frikkin bone here.

*BTW*

This looks controlled as shit.
World Trade Center, around September 21, 2001


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 19, 2009)

You just keep obsessing about towers 1 and 2, you won't discuss #7 because it defies everything you can muster to explain.
You spend 70% of your posts attacking others, which makes you just the other fat mean kid no one wants to play with, hell you even attack your own supporters.

Watch this video, it puts WTC 7 and another controlled demo building side by side for comparison, the both fall exactly the same, same speed starting from the bottom up. Explain that!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_comparison.wmv now that looks exactly controlled, hard to deny it.

And don't give me that fire shit, we have already proven the 2 little fires could mnot have done that, plus the very small physical damage from debris certainly would not do it either, the combination of both would not even put a dent into it.

BTW the fire fighters did not think the buildings were going to fall, if they did you wouldn't have 300 dead now would they? Fire commanders don't send firefighters into a building they think is going to disintegrate. Fire fighters do not make the big decisions, the commanders do.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 19, 2009)

Hey What... Huh? 

Where did u come up with "glitter bomb waiting for 3 years to go off"?

So.. A few days turnes to 3 years when u read it? Hahah okay okay i see how u work. 

You ever think a traditional demo would look to much like a demo, it had to be unorthodox(thermite). There are like 12 families that perform demolitions, none of which use thermite. I agree with u on the fact that thermite is not used to take down buildings, but that doesnt mean you cant take down a building with thermite.

Do you honestly believe regular fire kept the pile of rubble burning for three months?

The majority of the towers offices where vacant anyway, the buildings were on a down fall, with nobody willing to pay the billions to go thru a replace the asbestoes fire proofing.

Buildings have basements, service elevators, other corridors that the general public dont have access to... Do u really think they would roll explosive charges into the fuckin lobby and into the main elevator??? Ur an idiot if u think that...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 19, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> So... your current question is, "How many people minimum, do you suppose would HAVE to be involved in this conspiracy?"


there is no way we can know that for sure without a real investigation ... 



what... huh? said:


> Oh... and Gage
> http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BEBFC8F0282076E0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=kjJzlcdtlkU
> 
> 7:06.
> ...


I saw nothing in that time other than the building collapsing at free fall speed. This video only supports our arguments ... so what else is new?



what... huh? said:


> It appears you have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And this is a "lying presentation" because? .... what is he lying about? ... you fail to mention that in all your posts.



what... huh? said:


> I guess it will be hard to prove that Gage himself made his website... and therefor the information contained therein does not reflect his views. Bummer... there I go being debunked again.


Yeah ... you got that right ... debunked again ... you have presented nothing to support the claim of the government ... nothing.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 19, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Securacom's contract ended in 1998. You are just promoting bullshit.


Source link please?



what... huh? said:


> That would have been easy as shit to plant 136 gravity defying thermite bombs into. I mean... only about 30,000 people per day walked in and out of those things. Nobody would have seen them hauling in (x) tons of thermite.


they could have disguise or hid it in some type of equipment ... something people would not suspect. This is something else we won't know for sure until a real investigation.




what... huh? said:


> Not to mention the fact that... well... you still haven't addressed why nobody uses thermite to demo buildings...


Why would they have to? It doesn't explain why thermite was used in the WTC buildings.



what... huh? said:


> esp large ones... because it is unpredictable, and irreversable. Precision demo is exactly that. Push the button, and the series goes boom. Thermite... ehhh... it goes when enough of it gets hot enough, for long enough. It also kinda works with gravity. None of you folks have addressed that.


Yeah we have ... back on page 60 post # 594 ... the transcript of the Danish scientist ...


> *Interviewer*: So you found this substance in the WTC, why do you think it caused the collapses?
> 
> *Harrit:* Well, it's an explosive. Why else would it be there?
> *Interviewer:* You believe the intense heat melted the building's steel support structure, and caused the building to collapse like a house of cards?
> ...







> There were only two planes, but three skyscrapers collapsed. We know roughly how much dust was created. The pictures show huge quantities, everything but the steel was pulverised. And we know roughly how much unreacted thermite we have found. This is the "loaded gun", material that did not ignite for some reason. We are talking about tons. Over 10 tons, possibly 100 tons.







> *Interviewer:* So you are in no doubt the material was present?
> 
> *Harrit:* *You cannot fudge this kind of science. * We have found it. Unreacted thermite.
> 
> ...


No points for you ... once again.



what... huh? said:


> In all of your controlled demo video, you have yet to show one which used thermite.


It's pretty obvious thermite was used in all the buildings.




what... huh? said:


> You have yet to show one, using ANY detonation, which went from the top down. *Have none of you noticed the difference in all of those videos and wtc 1&2? *In all of your babble... you fail to notice 4 key differences in this than any other demolition in history.
> 
> 1. It destructs from the top down.


The explosions (denotations) started from the top.



what... huh? said:


> 2. Thermite has never been used (because it sucks for the purpose... gravity and "control" both)


Since they found unreated thermite at the site that blows your theory ... 



what... huh? said:


> 3. Scale. This is bigger, and was damaged differently than any structure in history.


I and No posted pictures and links of high rises that withstood fire for far longer and still stand ... again you offer nothing to support the government's bull shit claims.



what... huh? said:


> 4. It burned for over 3 months. Longer than any structure in history. Not thermite, not anything makes that happen.


Well is nothing can make that happen then why did it burn for 3 months? The answer is obvious for those that can see ... thermite.




what... huh? said:


> This looks controlled as shit.
> World Trade Center, around September 21, 2001


Yeah ... that thermite really did the job didn't it ... thanks for the link.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 19, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> You just keep obsessing about towers 1 and 2, you won't discuss #7 because it defies everything you can muster to explain.
> You spend 70% of your posts attacking others, which makes you just the other fat mean kid no one wants to play with, hell you even attack your own supporters.


I have explained several times that I like to go one thing at a time, and we have much left to resolve on WTC 1&2. If you are willing to concede 1&2 I will move full force to 7. It could be said that your inability to demonstrate your case in face of the facts of 1&2 explains your impatience and desire to move on. I like things put to bed.

I have asked for civility since I got here, and yet I am still insulted in almost every post. I have been called a great number of things, and I stated quite clearly that I was feeling out the moderators on this site before I returned in kind. Don't bitch about it, stop being insulting. I said you would get mad because I am better at it than you. My treatment, time availability, and your ability to deal rationally with this discussion determines my demeanor. This is why I stopped reading grow's posts 20 pages ago.



NoDrama said:


> Watch this video, it puts WTC 7 and another controlled demo building side by side for comparison, the both fall exactly the same, same speed starting from the bottom up. Explain that!
> 
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_comparison.wmv now that looks exactly controlled, hard to deny it.


As I have said from the beginning... "I wouldn't expect it to fall like that." is not proof of anything. It is evidence. All that is necessary to be correct about its reason for falling is to demonstrate, based on the conditions and evidence, the likelihood of the collapse. My reason tells me that a ctrled demo of the building is pointless. My reason tells me that a conspiracy of this scope is not possible. My reason tells me that the experts in the field at the time knew full well it was going to collapse because of the fatigue of the trusses which caused the BUILDING ITSELF to deform. I know that structure fires weaken steel. I know it was on fire for more than 7 hours. I know that Gage lies about the rate of decent on that too... and has changed his "facts" of this fall at least 3 times to try and adhere to an IMAGE of truth finding. 

You?

You didn't expect it to fall like that.



NoDrama said:


> And don't give me that fire shit, we have already proven the 2 little fires could mnot have done that, plus the very small physical damage from debris certainly would not do it either, the combination of both would not even put a dent into it.


You haven't proven anything. You have made statements. Here is me making a statement... "2 little fires wont burn for 7 hours." There... have I PROVEN my case? No. Neither have you.



NoDrama said:


> BTW the fire fighters did not think the buildings were going to fall, if they did you wouldn't have 300 dead now would they? Fire commanders don't send firefighters into a building they think is going to disintegrate. Fire fighters do not make the big decisions, the commanders do.


I specifically mentioned only the fire officials, and the group of firemen who reported 7 was an imminent failure due to the bulging of floors 10-13 on the back side. God I hate strawmen. That is right. Only the fire chiefs, who themselves are all 10+ year veteran firefighters who live, eat, work, and play with their brethren firefighters. You believe the rational explanation is that they sent their friends and family in to die. Perfectly rational. 

Now... how much thermite is required to drop such a building?



huffy420 said:


> Hey What... Huh?
> 
> Where did u come up with "glitter bomb waiting for 3 years to go off"?
> 
> So.. A few days turnes to 3 years when u read it? Hahah okay okay i see how u work.


Because securicom's contract ended in 98. 3 years. You are posting erronious information. That was the point. That dust was 3 inches thick for 30 sq blocks.

So they trucked up x ammount of thermite, and y ammount of concrete dust now... awesome. Anything else planted? The more the better.



huffy420 said:


> Do you honestly believe regular fire kept the pile of rubble burning for three months?


I again ask if you know how long a thermite reaction lasts?



huffy420 said:


> Buildings have basements, service elevators, other corridors that the general public dont have access to... Do u really think they would roll explosive charges into the fuckin lobby and into the main elevator??? Ur an idiot if u think that...


See what I mean? No reason to call names. Ever been to a demo rigging? Any idea the ammounts required, time required, access required? I know a demolitions expert. I haven't talked to big Tim in a long time. I guess I will fire up the phone for some expert estimates if none of you will give me any.

I am curious what you mean by families however... do you mean families of explosives? Or demo houses?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 19, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> This is why I stopped reading grow's posts 20 pages ago.


Once again making shit up ... and what gets me is we can easily check it out by reading past post ... it hasn't been "20 pages" ... when are you going to stop making shit up? You get busted every time you do it ... yet you continue to do so ... it only makes you look


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 19, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Oh... I thought...
> 
> 
> In the words of Dick Cheney... "Go fuck yourself".





what... huh? said:


> *beginning*
> 
> be·gin·ning [ bi gínning ]
> 
> ...





what... huh? said:


> I have asked for civility since I got here, and yet I am still insulted in almost every post. I have been called a great number of things, and I stated quite clearly that I was feeling out the moderators on this site before I returned in kind.


Yep telling people to go fuck themselves and calling them contradictory pricks, yeah that is civility in action right there. Quite sure I have been the one acting civil.

The beginning is the FIRST PART not the second paragraph, not the second sentence the very first sentence. If someone told you to read them a book FROM THE BEGINNING, would you then go and start at the second chapter because its close enough? fuck no you would start at the sentence that began" It was a dark and stormy night." The FIRST sentence. If you are anti semantic then you are anti meaning of words, or another way to say it is, you try to convince others that the meaning of the word is somehow different than what everyone thinks it means. This is a forum, Semantics are extremely important, there is no way to tell sarcasm from seriousness as there is no inflection to a post. Words must have a common meaning and buddy let me tell ya, the beginning of a post is the first fucking sentence, not the second sentence and not the beginning of the second paragraph. 

Now let me give you an estimate on how much thermite, between 1 pound and 10 trillion, somewhere in there ok? I have never blown up a world trade center so I can't tell you, maybe your friend has experience with 120 story steel skyscrapers, if he doesn't he isn't an expert at it is he? 

How long will the reaction last? as long as there is reactable material, in the case of WTC 3 months. Pretty hard for us to PROVE anything and as such it is pretty hard for you to PROVE anything either. The building is gone, all the steel was melted down and the rest was burried in a land fill. So you go ahead and keep making your bridge argument and we will keep ignoring it.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 19, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Because securicom's contract ended in 98. 3 years. You are posting erronious information.



"A security company called Stratesec acquires an $8.3 million contract to help provide security at the World Trade Center. It is one of numerous contractors hired in the upgrade of security at the WTC following the 1993 bombing. Stratesec, which was formerly called Securacom, is responsible for installing the &#8220;security-description plan&#8221;&#8212;the layout of the electronic security system&#8212;at the World Trade Center. It has a &#8220;completion contract&#8221; to provide some of the center&#8217;s security &#8220;up to the day the buildings fell down,&#8221; according to Barry McDaniel, its CEO from January 2002. Another of Stratesec&#8217;s biggest security contracts, between 1995 and 1998, is with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, providing electronic security for Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Their work includes maintaining the airfield access systems, the CCTV (closed circuit television) systems, and the electronic badging systems. American Airlines Flight 77&#8212;one of the planes hijacked on 9/11&#8212;takes off from Dulles. Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of future President George W. Bush, is a director at Stratesec from 1993 to June 2000, when most of their work on these big projects is done. Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative of George W. Bush, is chairman of the board at Stratesec from 1992, and its CEO from 1999 until January 2002. Another of Stratesec&#8217;s directors, from 1991 to 2001, is Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah, who is a member of the Kuwaiti royal family. Al Sabah is also chairman of an investment company called the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), which, between 1993 and 1999, holds a large, often controlling share of Stratesec. In 1996, it owns 90 percent of the company; by 1999 it owns 47 percent. According to Wayne Black, the head of a Florida-based security firm, it is delicate for a security company serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company. He suggests: &#8220;Somebody knew somebody.&#8221; Black also points out that when a company has a security contract, &#8220;you know the inner workings of everything.&#8221; Furthermore, if another company is linked to the security company, then &#8220;what&#8217;s on your computer is on their computer.&#8221; After 9/11 Stratesec CEO Barry McDaniel is asked whether FBI or other agents have questioned him or others at Stratesec about their security work related to 9/11. He answers, &#8220;No.&#8221; [American Reporter, 1/20/2003; Progressive Populist, 2/1/2003; Prince George's Journal, 2/4/2003; Progressive Populist, 4/15/2003; Washington Spectator, 2/15/2005] "

cooperativeresearch.net/entity.jsp?entity=world_trade_center


Securacom's may had a contract end in 1998, BUT that doesnt mean they dont have to complete previous contracts 



what... huh? said:


> See what I mean? No reason to call names. Ever been to a demo rigging? Any idea the ammounts required, time required, access required? I know a demolitions expert. I haven't talked to big Tim in a long time. I guess I will fire up the phone for some expert estimates if none of you will give me any.


I dont think was name calling, I was simply saying that if you believed they would just roll explosives right into the lobby for everyone to see, instead of using the hidden service elevators... that would make you an idiot.

Oh... I thought... 



what... huh? said:


> In the words of Dick Cheney... "Go fuck yourself".


But now i shall call you something..... hypocrite!!



what... huh? said:


> I am curious what you mean by families however... do you mean families of explosives? Or demo houses?



family owned companies


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 19, 2009)

With some of that water, that was used to put out the flames. 

What's in the sewer system then? 

maybe youll find thermite still? 

THE THERMITE IS IN THE WATER!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 20, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> With some of that water, that was used to put out the flames.
> 
> What's in the sewer system then?
> 
> ...


Yeah ... keep it up laughing boy ... the only laughing is at you... check it out people some pretty interesting info ... to check out the WMV files you will have to click on the site link below. The links won't work here.
Thermite and the WTC Collapses





Image source: USGS Spectroscopy Lab
The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to. [ABC News, 9/18/01]





"This is how it's been since day one...and this is six weeks later. As we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter - it's probably 1500 degrees."  WMV video download (616kB)







"Out on the rubble it's still, I believe, 1,100 degrees. The guys boots just melt within a few hours." WMV video download (130kB) 
In perfect conditions the _maximum_ temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.
Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?


Here's another example of what WH put up ... see how he provides proof to dismiss his own arugments? ... Check it ...
One of the more unusual artifacts to emerge from the rubble is this rock-like object which has come to be known as "the meteorite". "This is a fused element of molten steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single element".


WMV video download (376kB)










Melted police guns and concrete retrieved from the World Trade Center wreckage

Conventional fires cannot account for the above, but thermite can.
A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500° C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings.


"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
Video documenting nine explosions at the base of WTC 2 prior to its collapse.​
WMV video dowenload (2.8 MB)












Thermite gives off dense white smoke with very little odor.
Video of smoke rising from the World Trade Center wreckage.
The smoke rising from the wreckage should have been black, not white.
The wreckage of WTC 2 radiated the greatest heat on September 16, 2001. Thermite detonations would account for this.


WMV video download (121kB)



Plenty more good info and videos on this subject, plus links to other web sites with excellent info. 
You bushwhacked are fighting a losing battle. The evidence is clear to most of us. * 911 was an inside job. *It clearly explains why the government refuses to have a public non partisan investigation where witnesses must testify under oath with jail terms if caught lying while under oath. Then and only then will I shut the hell up and would watch and listen carefully to the investigation.




​


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 20, 2009)

You do know that thermite burns fast right? Not for 6 weeks.

And there is no way those firemen would be leaning over a white hot pit like that. They would be dead.

Common sense is needed. Big time.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 20, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You do know that thermite burns fast right? Not for 6 weeks.


Oh does it now ... source and link please ... and while you are at it explain what caused the heat for that long?



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> And there is no way those firemen would be leaning over a white hot pit like that. They would be dead.


And prey tell why would they be dead? The temp where they are is obviously not as hot as where they are looking.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Common sense is needed. Big time.


Yeah ... and you need to follow your own advice ... big time ... we'll be looking for that link.


----------



## MediMary (Jun 20, 2009)

avlon06 said:


> I was just using him as an example, if these conspiracy theories were correct about and our government was as fucked up as they make it out to seem, i could see no one that posted 911 conspiracies or anythign similar to live very long, weather they just "disappear" or die suddenly it would happen if our government was that fucked up, but i do not believe that.


like william cooper RIP*


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 20, 2009)

MediMary said:


> like william cooper RIP*


 
Or John ONiel, or John Graham

Both men tried to warn the FBI about an impending terrorist attack and were silenced and sent back home and told to just forget about it... then later both were found dead due to suspicious circumstances...

What could possibly explain that?


----------



## olosto (Jun 20, 2009)

Say that its true... What now? What would you like done? Fill us in on the plan. I don't mean generalizations, give me specifics and who and what gets done.. The whole thing.. Be specific please...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 20, 2009)

olosto said:


> Say that its true... What now? What would you like done? Fill us in on the plan. I don't mean generalizations, give me specifics and who and what gets done.. The whole thing.. Be specific please...



We've already made it quite clear what must be done. An investigation ... independent ... non partisan ... public ... witnesses testify under oath ... in public forum ... nuff said.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 21, 2009)

Why is that so unreasonable? 

Why was it so unreasonable in the first place, during the first investigation?

Why would you be against a non partisan, independent investigation into 911?


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> We've already made it quite clear what must be done. An investigation ... independent ... non partisan ... public ... witnesses testify under oath ... in public forum ... nuff said.


Oh please.. I said if it were true.. Then what.. Specifics.. Do you not understand what I am asking?


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Why would you be against a non partisan, independent investigation into 911?


I have yet to any proof that warrents the spending of tax payer dollars to investigate this AGAIN.

This whole "911 Truthers" thing dishonors those that died in this event by marring this tradgedy with far fetched tin foil hat wet dream bull shit.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 21, 2009)

olosto said:


> I have yet to any proof that warrents the spending of tax payer dollars to investigate this AGAIN.
> This whole "911 Truthers" thing dishonors those that died in this event by marring this tradgedy with far fetched tin foil hat wet dream bull shit.


&#12288;
Really, you're perfectly content with the previous 911 investigation? I mean 100% content? You don't think there was anything wrong with it?

Some people who claim to be '911 truthers' are indeed pretty damn nuts, no doubt about that. But you're an ignorant fool if you pick the very worst of a group and judge the rest by his actions. 

There are plenty of legitimate questions coming from plenty of credible people, some of whom include the families of the victims of the 911 attacks. 

What dishonors those that died in the event is those that'll take the governments word at face value and stifle actual investigating into what actually happened. I mean, when do governments ever lie, right?


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 21, 2009)

I seen on one of those zeitgeist documentary's, it said something like, 

The truth is hard to accept as it is, which is the alternate of fiction, where fiction has to be somewhat "believeable". 

Or something like that.

Oh the irony.

You know, I look at the general unrest of the Mid-East and I can more easily point my finger that way to tell you the truth, then at our own. It's just utterly unbelieveable.

I look to past evidence myself, of the Olympic athletes hostages of the past hijacked, Black september eh. I hate to use that as a reference, maybe that was a conspiracy too haha, and general character of those possibly involved. I just cannot and will not start to even comprehend your reasoning. In that respect, of conspiracy's, the tin foil will always boil water in anything over 212 degrees farenhieght. I hope those hurt by all this can find solice and hope in something in the world. And that even you sir, can find some kind of answer you are looking for someday.

A foreseeable past, you can almost smell it bro.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 21, 2009)

olosto said:


> I have yet to any proof that warrents the spending of tax payer dollars to investigate this AGAIN.
> 
> This whole "911 Truthers" thing dishonors those that died in this event by marring this tradgedy with far fetched tin foil hat wet dream bull shit.


And we have yet to see from you any proof that the government story is true ... the only thing you have done is blow shit out your ass by making ridiculous statements with no backing what so ever. There is plenty of proof that warrants an investigation ... you are just far too stupid to see it ... and that's not our problem.
Dishonors those that died? ... tell that to these people. 
Vote for Answers
[youtube]TzC3QI8JenU&feature=email[/youtube]
So much for your "dishonoring" bullshit ... It is you that are dishonoring ... the families of those murdered who obviously *want an investigation *... only the bushwhacked want to deny these people and the rest of the country the right to find out what happen. Only the bushwhacked would accept the bull shit commission ... which went out of it's way to cover the truth ... only the bushwhacked turn their back to the obvious crimes that have been committed. So once again you demonstrate that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.Keep it up ... it's a absolute joy making you look like a fool.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 21, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> You just keep obsessing about towers 1 and 2, you won't discuss #7 because it defies everything you can muster to explain.
> You spend 70% of your posts attacking others, which makes you just the other fat mean kid no one wants to play with, hell you even attack your own supporters.


LOL @ 70% of my posts attacking others. Please demonstrate this lest you be labeled a liar and all you have said be stricken.

I have said several times that I like to move one thing at a time. There is still much left unresolved on 1&2. If you are wiling to concede the argument I will gladly move ahead full steam on 7.




NoDrama said:


> Watch this video, it puts WTC 7 and another controlled demo building side by side for comparison, the both fall exactly the same, same speed starting from the bottom up. Explain that!
> 
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_comparison.wmv now that looks exactly controlled, hard to deny it.


My explanation is the same as yours. "I wouldn't expect it to fall like that."



NoDrama said:


> And don't give me that fire shit, we have already proven the 2 little fires could mnot have done that, plus the very small physical damage from debris certainly would not do it either, the combination of both would not even put a dent into it.


You haven't proven any such thing... you have stated it several times. Here is another example of you kids misunderstanding/misusing the terms "evidence" "proof" and "disproven". A statement does not "disprove" anything, even if it seems logical. For instance... "2 small fires wouldn't burn for 7 hours". There... have I PROVEN how the building fell? No. Neither have you.



NoDrama said:


> BTW the fire fighters did not think the buildings were going to fall, if they did you wouldn't have 300 dead now would they? Fire commanders don't send firefighters into a building they think is going to disintegrate. Fire fighters do not make the big decisions, the commanders do.


The firefighters knew building 7 was going to fall because the back side was bulging between floors 10 and 13.



NoDrama said:


> Yep telling people to go fuck themselves and calling them contradictory pricks, yeah that is civility in action right there. Quite sure I have been the one acting civil.


I said also that before I returned in kind, I was seeing how the moderators handled it. I was new. If you are going to attempt to attack me personally, I am going to do it better than you to discourage it. The time I have available, your individual demeanor towards me, and the leash I am given determines how I treat you. You will notice I have not replied with anything but respect to Huffy, who has, as of yet, not been insulting. You may also note that I stopped reading grow rebels posts 20 pages back. If you want to return jibes while we argue, I don't take issue with it... but grow a thick skin... and be aware that you bring it on yourself. I enjoy being insulting as much as the next guy, but I think it distracts from this argument, which I find important, so despite my enjoyment, I would prefer to remain civil... but really either way, I'm good.



NoDrama said:


> Yep telling people to go fuck themselves and calling them contradictory pricks, yeah that is civility in action right there. Quite sure I have been the one acting civil.
> 
> The beginning is the FIRST PART not the second paragraph, not the second sentence the very first sentence. If someone told you to read them a book FROM THE BEGINNING, would you then go and start at the second chapter because its close enough? fuck no you would start at the sentence that began "It was a dark and stormy night."


"Meg Murry, her small brother Charles Wallace, and her mother had come down to the kitchen for a midnight snack when they were upset by the arrival of a most disturbing stranger."

Couldn't resist.




NoDrama said:


> The FIRST sentence. If you are anti semantic then you are anti meaning of words, or another way to say it is, you try to convince others that the meaning of the word is somehow different than what everyone thinks it means.


I didn't say first. I said beginning. Meg Murray walked into her mothers lab where bunson burners were lit in the beginning of the book too as I recall. A tesseract is mentioned in the beginning somewhere as well...

I am glad to clear that up for you.




NoDrama said:


> This is a forum, Semantics are extremely important, there is no way to tell sarcasm from seriousness as there is no inflection to a post. Words must have a common meaning and buddy let me tell ya, the beginning of a post is the first fucking sentence, not the second sentence and not the beginning of the second paragraph.


As I said, because you misuse the term, does not mean you have been mislead.

The reason I said "begin" is because over the last 40 or 50 pages your modus operandi has seemed to be in the following order.

1 Address a point with rebuttal.
2 Ask for a contrived answer to a question.
3 Drop an insult about my integrity or comprehension skills.
4 Address other point or points.
5 Close insisting that I am not answering your questions, not noticing the rest of the post doesn't address the one question I ask until some 10-20 pages later.

The speculative questions, which you lambaste me for for asking, generally happen in the beginning stages of your posts. When they occur is not the point of addressing them however... that they occur is. If my impression of WHEN they are dropped is not completely accurate by your understanding of the word, then I sincerely apologize that I somehow indicated that their position in your posts bore any relevance. I guess a better way to have phrased it would have been to say "Funny, since so many of your questions ask or insist upon the same thing."




NoDrama said:


> Now let me give you an estimate on how much thermite, between 1 pound and 10 trillion, somewhere in there ok? I have never blown up a world trade center so I can't tell you, maybe your friend has experience with 120 story steel skyscrapers, if he doesn't he isn't an expert at it is he?


So there are no demolitions experts who can comment on WTC is all that means. No architects who have not built buildings that tall... no... well really nobody is an expert in anything to do with the WTC towers unless they applied their expertise TO the towers... and unfortunately they are all in on it. That sucks. Nobody knows anything about physics, demolition, or thermodynamics... well... except you and grow.



NoDrama said:


> How long will the reaction last? as long as there is reactable material, in the case of WTC 3 months. Pretty hard for us to PROVE anything and as such it is pretty hard for you to PROVE anything either. The building is gone, all the steel was melted down and the rest was burried in a land fill. So you go ahead and keep making your bridge argument and we will keep ignoring it.


Of course you will ignore evidence which directly contradicts your dogma. That is how fanaticism works. Gas doesn't burn at 2000 degrees, steel looses half of its rigidity at 1000, the truck was consumed in the blaze bringing the flames to over 3000 degrees. Why WOULD you acknowledge it? It demonstrates that heat fatigue and the weight of 13 - 25 floors could result in collapse.

How about you address some lingering problems which plague your theory.

1. Why would the thermite reaction not happen due to the heat from the fires/impact explosion?

The only answer given is that the thermite was in the lower 75% of the building... which begs question 
A) How did the building fall from the top down AT the point of impact?

2. Why is there no record of any building in history being demolished from the top down?

3. Alumothermite reaction time. "As long as there is combustible material." Combustable material being iron oxide and powdered aluminum oxide... how long does it take to vanquish itself? It creates very intense heat for a very short time. You are avoiding the answer in your answer. There is a formula from which one can derive the maximum amount of burn time of a given reaction based on quantity. Give me that time... then make up a quantity (starting to see where this is going? Science sure is annoying ain't it?).

4. Gravity is a problem with thermite.



huffy420 said:


> Securacom's may had a contract end in 1998, BUT that doesnt mean they dont have to complete previous contracts


The problem with your theory and links lies in the fact that securacom didn't "do" the installations of aything. J.E. Electric Installations Co. ran all of the cabling, installed all of the cameras/computer lines/control systems. Securacom was a systems integrator. They were in charge of tying the redundant command centers together, and translation from video hardware to computer IO controlling and grouping... sophisticated video systems are a pain in the ass. Evidently securacom sucked at it. The WTC security director (John O'Neil) was also killed in the collapse. You are going to have to include port authority in your group of people "in on it". A minimum number I am still waiting on.

They were also "excused" from their contract because of fulfillment failures in 98, which is the last time they got a check. They had an active contract in pen only.

"security" was handled by its owners... port authority... which had, among other things, bomb sniffing k9s on WTC premises. Including poor Sirius who died on 9/11.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States



huffy420 said:


> But now i shall call you something..... hypocrite!!


See above.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 21, 2009)

Besides... the Dick Cheney thing was funny. Who says "go fuck yourself" on the senate floor? I mean seriously... that's fucking funny.


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> And we have yet to see from you any proof that the government story is true ... the only thing you have done is blow shit out your ass by making ridiculous statements with no backing what so ever. There is plenty of proof that warrants an investigation ... you are just far too stupid to see it ... and that's not our problem.
> Dishonors those that died? ... tell that to these people.
> Vote for Answers
> [youtube]TzC3QI8JenU&feature=email[/youtube]
> So much for your "dishonoring" bullshit ... It is you that are dishonoring ... the families of those murdered who obviously *want an investigation *... only the bushwhacked want to deny these people and the rest of the country the right to find out what happen. Only the bushwhacked would accept the bull shit commission ... which went out of it's way to cover the truth ... only the bushwhacked turn their back to the obvious crimes that have been committed. So once again you demonstrate that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.Keep it up ... it's a absolute joy making you look like a fool.


 
So I thought we wern't going to use personal attacks.. I guess your losing badly enough that its time to ad hominem, that is when you are losing a debate to attack the opposition..

Also if you re-read my posts you will see that I have provided more cites than anyone else on this post with the exception of What..Huh?, Its you that need to get your shit together. Don't come to me with a view point that a vast majority of Americans think is total bullshit. If you have a view point like that its you responsibility to lay out your arguement properly. So far all you have brought are arguements that in a court of law (the standard for arguements), would be laughed out of the court room. No my friend it s YOUR responsibility to present a coherent case, as you have not done.

If you do not understand how you dishonor those that died for our country and beliefs by shadowing their sacrifices with conspiracy theories. I mean if you had a smoking gun that would be one thing.. But what you actually have is a bunch of circumstantial evidence that points to nothing..


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 21, 2009)

olosto said:


> So I thought we wern't going to use personal attacks..


I never agreed to that ... and besides I'm merely showing that the shoe fits nothing more.



olosto said:


> I guess your losing badly enough that its time to ad hominem, that is when you are losing a debate to attack the opposition..


Yeah ... you keep saying that as though if you say it enough it will come true ... it won't.



olosto said:


> Also if you re-read my posts you will see that I have provided more cites than anyone else on this post


What you call "cites" is nothing more than you making a statement with no links to the source backing your statement ... or "cites" some info that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.




olosto said:


> with the exception of What..Huh?, Its you that need to get your shit together.


Well considering how fucked in the head you are ... it's easy to see you would have those kinds of delusions.



olosto said:


> Don't come to me with a view point that a vast majority of Americans think is total bullshit.


Once again caught  bullshit ... already been there and done that ... slam you with links to polls in a previous post... showing we are the majority ... but you have yet to produce one poll that shows the majority of Americans buy the government's bullshit ... put up or STFU on this one ... now watch folks at home ... this will be another post that he will ignore ... one of the typical bushwhacked tactic ... and he will fail to produce anything to support his lame argument. Watch now.



olosto said:


> If you have a view point like that its you responsibility to lay out your arguement properly.


Been there done that ... like I said ... it's not my problem that you can't comprehend the obvious. My only concern is to show the folks at home how  you deniers are ... nothing more.



olosto said:


> So far all you have brought are arguements that in a court of law (the standard for arguements), would be laughed out of the court room.


I highly doubt that. The fact the government is avoiding a real investigation proves you're full of shit on this point too.



olosto said:


> No my friend it s YOUR responsibility to present a coherent case, as you have not done.


Oh yeah ... I have ... along with others ... over and over again ... more than enough to warrant an independent investigation ... and most people on this forum see that. There is only a handful of bushwhacks, that are in denial.



olosto said:


> If you do not understand how you dishonor those that died for our country and beliefs by shadowing their sacrifices with conspiracy theories.


Oh stfu ... you are the only one that dishonors those by trying to deny what took place on 911. It dishonors those that died in a illegal invasion, brought on with lies by the war criminals that are responsible for 911. The only "conspiracy theories" are the ones you and the government are putting out. Too bad most of us don't buy the bullshit ... must be frustrating for you.



olosto said:


> I mean if you had a smoking gun that would be one thing..


We have far more than a smoking gun ... it is just you that are too  to see it ... from another scientist you can't dispute ...



> *Harrit:* But the article may not be as groundbreaking as you think. *Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, have long known that the three buildings were demolished. * This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the "smoking gun", it is the "loaded gun". Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. That is something unstoppable.






> *Harrit:* *You cannot fudge this kind of science. * We have found it. Unreacted thermite.


It's very easy to prove you do nothing but blow shit out your ass ... so easy ... 



olosto said:


> But what you actually have is a bunch of circumstantial evidence that points to nothing..


Oh of course ... finding unreated thermite is only circumstantial evidence ...  ... still more proof you're fucked in the head. All too easy.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 21, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> 1. Why would the thermite reaction not happen due to the heat from the fires/impact explosion?
> 
> The only answer given is that the thermite was in the lower 75% of the building... which begs question




LOL i agree i threw out some BS there let me try alittle harder, hows this...

"The ignition temperature of thermite is extremely high. Therefore, traditional ignition methods like fuse, matches, and electrical igniters do not work. There are several ways to safely light a thermite mixture, the most common being: 
*Magnesium Ribbon"*
Thermite - PyroGuide

We all seen magnesium ribbon in High School (at least my school)... remember how bright that shit was LOL

"Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction."
Thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jet fuel just doesnt reach these "white hot" temperatures required for thermite to react.



"Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality, resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction to cut through steel. 

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well."
9-11 Research: Thermite

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel."
9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy




what... huh? said:


> 2. Why is there no record of any building in history being demolished from the top down?


Like I said, it had to look like it collapsed, not like a traditional demolition or else no one would of bite....




what... huh? said:


> The problem with your theory and links lies in the fact that securacom didn't "do" the installations of aything. J.E. Electric Installations Co. ran all of the cabling, installed all of the cameras/computer lines/control systems. Securacom was a systems integrator. They were in charge of tying the redundant command centers together, and translation from video hardware to computer IO controlling and grouping... sophisticated video systems are a pain in the ass. Evidently securacom sucked at it. The WTC security director (John O'Neil) was also killed in the collapse. You are going to have to include port authority in your group of people "in on it". A minimum number I am still waiting on.
> 
> They were also "excused" from their contract because of fulfillment failures in 98, which is the last time they got a check. They had an active contract in pen only.
> 
> ...


Sorry but... you can take everything the 9/11 Commission states and wipe your ass with it, for its Gubbermint influenced! 

You think the government has never lied to you or something? 

The 9/11 Commission had interest in protecting the government from accountability. Reason being the denial of independent investigation. What ya got to hide huh?


"Having thoroughly researched every aspect of the attacks, the Family Sterling Commission provided the Commission with 400 questions that would need to be answered for the Commission to fulfill its mandate. After 18 months of proceedings and the release of the Commissions Final Report on July 22, 2004, the Family Steering Committee determined that only 30% of its questions had been answered, leaving some 250 questions still unanswered. The validity of the Commissions findings was further undermined by several factors, including contradictory accounts from the Federal Aviation Administration and the military, stonewalling from the Bush Administration, conflicts of interest among key personnel in the Commission, and the Commissions failure to hold a single individual accountable for the numerous failures leading up to, on and after September 11" 
NYC Coalition For Accountability Now


Do you honestly deep down inside believe the 9/11 Commission gave all accurate information and were not biased in any way?


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

olosto said:


> Yea.. speed of light is not close to 500 mph but that does not mean the effect is nothing. I don't really know what the purpose of throwing out the speed of light is..
> 
> And if you do not understand how kinetic energy works I cannot help you there either. Tremendous amounts of kinetic energy were released when the planes impaced the buildings. If you truely think that little friction or kinetic energy was imparted into the building (heat) then we are at an impass. I am talking about something that is standard physics and you can only say, I don't know physics.. Well, your wrong.. Not going to get into a pissing contest about it but your wrong.
> 
> ...





olosto said:


> Was it hot nuff.. is 2000 degrees enough?
> 
> 
> Flame temperatures in room fires
> ...





snowmanexpress said:


> All the proof I will EVER NEED to debunk all you conspiranuts.
> 
> YouTube - "Death to America" chants in Iran
> 
> ...


 
Here are a two of my cites and I explain how it relates to this arguement. Youtube viedos and interviews with people that have a vested interest (wrote a book, etc) in the topic are irrelavent.


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

"What you call "cites" is nothing more than you making a statement with no links to the source backing your statement ... or "cites" some info that has nothing to do with the issue at hand." Growrebel..


Really? The above deal with the matter at hand.. No only that they are unbiased sources. Much better than a propaganda source...


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

oops, the second quote is the wrong one, lol, its on the same page as the other one..


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 21, 2009)

olosto said:


> Here are a two of my cites and I explain how it relates to this arguement. Youtube viedos and interviews with people that have a vested interest (wrote a book, etc) in the topic are irrelavent.


Your kinetic energy bullshit don't wash since they found unreacted thermite at the site ... and because thermite was used explains the high temp. Just another example of your posts that doesn't explain the government's bullshit.


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

Wait.. Because they found some thermite at the site, my kenetic energy arguement is null? How does that work? You truely have no clue..


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 21, 2009)

thermite burning - Google Videos

Here ya go. Evidence of thermite not burning for 6 weeks. Oh wait. You will just say bullshit and call me bushwhacked without actually responding to that evidence.

But why bother responding. Just say bushwhacked 50 times and you'll feel you're right.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 21, 2009)

olosto said:


> Wait.. Because they found some thermite at the site, my kenetic energy arguement is null? How does that work? You truely have no clue..


How does it work ... because there is no other way for it to have gotten there other than someone putting it there ...  ... It's you that doesn't have a clue ... but that has pretty much been established a long time ago. Kinetic energy ... yeah ... right ... bwaa ha ha ha ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 21, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> thermite burning - Google Videos
> 
> Here ya go. Evidence of thermite not burning for 6 weeks. Oh wait. You will just say bullshit and call me bushwhacked without actually responding to that evidence.
> 
> But why bother responding. Just say bushwhacked 50 times and you'll feel you're right.


Oh please ... you post a video of some kids playing with a small amount of thermite then ask why it's not burning for 6 weeks? ... ah well ... because they use an amount that fits into a small cup compare to tons that must have been used to bring down those building. Get real. What part of unreacted thermite found at the site don't you understand?  So now I have responded to your so called evidence ... and stated why it is bullshit ... any questions? Or would you like to go and find some more lame shit to put up that I can easy expose as the bullshit it is ... next.


----------



## Radiate (Jun 21, 2009)

GR, 

Do you realize that the scientist you quote who found "nano-thermite" doesn't add up? Nano by definition is 1 billionth of a meter, so putting the dust under a microscope won't show you anything. You'd need a very high-powered electron microscope to pull that one off. Not to mention if the dust were that fine it would have ignited in the fire if not in the initial ignition of the thermite (powdered aluminum is explosive enough, I'd imagine nano-aluminum to be akin to flash powder). No thermite would be left un-reacted.

Also, if the government is so powerful that it can develop this unheard of technologically advanced thermite, run an entire operation to rig the buildings, and execute the plan, why do they suddenly drop the ball at the moment of truth? Anyone with that much intelligence could've easily executed the plan, or would've at least been capable of supressing any such talk as this. The government keeps a lot of things secret from us. If they wanted this to be a secret, I'm pretty confident this debate wouldn't exist. Riddle me this at least: if the destruction of the twin towers was a demolition, why did the government bother to make sure it came down in it's own footprint, seeing as how our lives obviously mean nothing to them? A messy collapse would've been much more convincing, and I find it extremely difficult to believe that the people who planned all of this out missed such a simple detail.

Also, you mention that the towers were constructed specifically to withstand the conditions thrown at it. That may be the case, but engineers say a lot of things about the stuff they design. Truth is, they didn't build an identical tower and crash a plane into it and set it on fire, so they have no empirical evidence of what it takes to design a tower that is plane and fire-proof. 

Before you reply with insults about me being "bushwhacked" in the head or whatever, please keep in mind I support neither side yet.


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> How does it work ... because there is no other way for it to have gotten there other than someone putting it there ...  ... It's you that doesn't have a clue ... but that has pretty much been established a long time ago. Kinetic energy ... yeah ... right ... bwaa ha ha ha ...


Nononono. Im talking about one arguement that has no link to the other. How does one of these invalidate the other. They do not and that is a huge problem. They are not related items or arguements. Just because someone found trace amounts of thermite, how does that prove that kenetic energy was not imparted on the building resulting in more heat? It does not and that is what makes your arguements so assnine..

You keep going on and on thinking your winning this thing when your not. A does not affect b if they are not related.


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

Radiate said:


> GR,
> 
> Do you realize that the scientist you quote who found "nano-thermite" doesn't add up? Nano by definition is 1 billionth of a meter, so putting the dust under a microscope won't show you anything. You'd need a very high-powered electron microscope to pull that one off. Not to mention if the dust were that fine it would have ignited in the fire if not in the initial ignition of the thermite (powdered aluminum is explosive enough, I'd imagine nano-aluminum to be akin to flash powder). No thermite would be left un-reacted.
> 
> ...


Beacuse you do not think like GR, you are already the enemy...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 21, 2009)

Radiate said:


> GR,
> Do you realize that the scientist you quote who found "nano-thermite" doesn't add up? Nano by definition is 1 billionth of a meter, so putting the dust under a microscope won't show you anything. You'd need a very high-powered electron microscope to pull that one off. Not to mention if the dust were that fine it would have ignited in the fire if not in the initial ignition of the thermite (powdered aluminum is explosive enough, I'd imagine nano-aluminum to be akin to flash powder). No thermite would be left un-reacted.


Well then where did the unreacted thermite they found came from ... or are you saying all those scientists are lying? ... and what makes you think these scientists didn't have the equipment necessary to come to their findings? Sorry but you fail to provide a valid explanation. Thermite was found ... it's an explosive ... nuff said.



Radiate said:


> Also, if the government is so powerful that it can develop this unheard of technologically advanced thermite,


What makes you say it's unheard of technologically?



Radiate said:


> run an entire operation to rig the buildings, and execute the plan, why do they suddenly drop the ball at the moment of truth?


What do you mean drop the ball at the moment of truth? Explain.



Radiate said:


> Anyone with that much intelligence could've easily executed the plan, or would've at least been capable of supressing any such talk as this.


I've provided plenty of post showing how desperate the government is to suppress this issue ... too bad for them it's not working ... and it never will ... people aren't nearly as stupid as they like to believe no matter how much bullshit propaganda they spew out.



Radiate said:


> The government keeps a lot of things secret from us. If they wanted this to be a secret, I'm pretty confident this debate wouldn't exist.


Like I said ... the government has gone way out of their way to stop any debate ... even going so far as having their propagandist put out a bullshit report that people who doubt the government has some kind of mental problem ... olsto put up some stupid shit like that.



Radiate said:


> Riddle me this at least: if the destruction of the twin towers was a demolition, why did the government bother to make sure it came down in it's own footprint, seeing as how our lives obviously mean nothing to them?


my quess would be property vaules ... certain areas they didn't want damaged ... but that something only the government officials who were involved can answer ... and that can only happen during a full independent investigation ... nuff said.



Radiate said:


> A messy collapse would've been much more convincing, and I find it extremely difficult to believe that the people who planned all of this out missed such a simple detail.


Oh I know they didn't miss out on that detail ... we just can't determine for sure what that is without a full independent investigation ... nuff said.



Radiate said:


> Also, you mention that the towers were constructed specifically to withstand the conditions thrown at it. That may be the case, but engineers say a lot of things about the stuff they design.


No don't even go there not with all the pictures of the construction ... those buildings were design to withstand what happen ... that's a matter of science not oppinion ... and I've provided links to back that ... what proof do you have other than a comment that engineers "say a lot of things" ... 



Radiate said:


> Truth is, they didn't build an identical tower and crash a plane into it and set it on fire, so they have no empirical evidence of what it takes to design a tower that is plane and fire-proof.


Source? Link? If not this is what I call merely blowing it out your ass ... nothing more.



Radiate said:


> Before you reply with insults about me being "bushwhacked" in the head or whatever, please keep in mind I support neither side yet.


You know what is a real insult? Ignorant and stupid people trying to block an independent investigation so those families that lost loved ones can find justice and peace of mind that the people really responsible will be held accountable. And I tell ya what ... I have no problem what so ever insulting people like this because quite frankly they need to be ... Why do you think those families are signing a petition to force a new investigation? Because they are nut jobs? Nuff said.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 21, 2009)

olosto said:


> Nononono. Im talking about one arguement that has no link to the other. How does one of these invalidate the other. They do not and that is a huge problem. They are not related items or arguements. Just because someone found trace amounts of thermite, how does that prove that kenetic energy was not imparted on the building resulting in more heat? It does not and that is what makes your arguements so assnine..


What part of they found unreacted thermite that you don't get ... it blows your kinetics bullshit ... and you just can't take it ... 



olosto said:


> You keep going on and on thinking your winning this thing when your not. A does not affect b if they are not related.


I don't think I'm winning* I know I am *... and folks notice he didn't produce the *poll* showing the majority of American buy the bullshit government story? What did I tell ya? He keeps talking that shit, but when ask to produce ... nothing ... that's how the bushwhack operate ... we are on to your tactics ... your leaders may be allowed by corporate news to get away with outrageous lies ... but no way will I let you get away with that shit here ... no fucking way.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 21, 2009)

> Truth is, they didn't build an identical tower and crash a plane into it and set it on fire, so they have no empirical evidence of what it takes to design a tower that is plane and fire-proof.


Small scale, wind tunnel test are performed. With a bit of calculating you can easily figure out what a structure can withstand. Jeez dosnt anyone watch "How It's Made" lol! No high rise in history have collapsed due to fire EVER, 3 fall in one day. WTC7 had a different structural design then WTC1&2. How can both designs be such a pussy when it comes to fire. All three towers really didnt even have a fire.... More like a girl scout fire! Get ya graham crackers n marshmellows kiddies, uncle bush is gonna try to feed yall some bullshit instead.

Need i say more
http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/steel-building-burns-out-but-does-not-collapse/


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> What part of they found unreacted thermite that you don't get ... it blows your kinetics bullshit ... and you just can't take it ...
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm winning* I know I am *... and folks notice he didn't produce the *poll* showing the majority of American buy the bullshit government story? What did I tell ya? He keeps talking that shit, but when ask to produce ... nothing ... that's how the bushwhack operate ... we are on to your tactics ... your leaders may be allowed by corporate news to get away with outrageous lies ... but no way will I let you get away with that shit here ... no fucking way.


You are hopeless. Enjoy your little world you live in


----------



## olosto (Jun 21, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Small scale, wind tunnel test are performed. With a bit of calculating you can easily figure out what a structure can withstand. Jeez dosnt anyone watch "How It's Made" lol! No high rise in history have collapsed due to fire EVER, 3 fall in one day. WTC7 had a different structural design then WTC1&2. How can both designs be such a pussy when it comes to fire. All three towers really didnt even have a fire.... More like a girl scout fire! Get ya graham crackers n marshmellows kiddies, uncle bush is gonna try to feed yall some bullshit instead.
> 
> Need i say more
> Steel building burns out in Beijing China, but does not collapse « Harmony Health and Wellness


It wasn't just the fire, it was the debris that fell on it and took out the supports. Fire dept abandoned it.. Why would anyone want to blow up an abandoned building.. No reason.. There has to be a reason.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 22, 2009)

olosto said:


> It wasn't just the fire, it was the debris that fell on it and took out the supports. Fire dept abandoned it.. Why would anyone want to blow up an abandoned building.. No reason.. There has to be a reason.


 
Perhaps the contents of the building were of high priority to be destroyed.

I've heard of which businesses and operation centers were inside building 7. I think if the 'terrorists' were smart, that would have been the target in the first place as it's so important to NYC. 


But anyway, I had another question for the guys that think building 7 came down by fire; 

Doesn't that bother you? Just a little bit? That there are buildings out there (if the official report is actually what happened) with some of the exact same engineering designs as building 7 and the towers had. How do you feel entering a skyscraper after 911? Do you feel safe? Wouldn't it make sense for the government to come out after the first 3 buildings in human history collapsed due to fire and start an investigation into whether other buildings of similar design around the world pass basic safety standards? What about the new buildings in Dubai, or the towers in China, Japan... I could litterally list dozens of different countries that hold hundreds of different buildings with very similar if not the same design features. All of them are at risk of collapse due to fire if the official report is accurate.

What do you make of that?


----------



## olosto (Jun 22, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Perhaps the contents of the building were of high priority to be destroyed.
> 
> I've heard of which businesses and operation centers were inside building 7. I think if the 'terrorists' were smart, that would have been the target in the first place as it's so important to NYC.
> 
> ...


The fires mosly likely destroyed everything... That makes no sense... You have no idea from ground level how much deris penetrated the first few floors, there just are not the pics, at least that I have seen.

Its just one improbable scenario after another with this whole theory. I know im not going to convince you if you truely believe that that is how it happened. I can offer how improbable the things you say happen are, but you are not going to believe me just like I am not going to believe improbable after improbable after impossible. 

I wish the people that really think this was a government conspiracy luck in getting their second investigation. I would suggest however raising the monies yourself so the taxpayers do not have to pay for this madness. Good day and good luck! 


Edit: My 1000th post whoo hoo!!!!


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 22, 2009)

God Damn this thing is gettin out of hand, I actually have a life and can't just spend 100 hours finding links or consulting the thesaurus every other sentence. SOME of you obviously have a lot more time than I do to come up with your arguments, mine are just off the cuff. I usually don't post too many links because .......................


----------



## paintsprayer71 (Jun 22, 2009)

damn i wanted the 666th post.............


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 22, 2009)

Radiate said:


> GR,
> 
> Do you realize that the scientist you quote who found "nano-thermite" doesn't add up? Nano by definition is 1 billionth of a meter, so putting the dust under a microscope won't show you anything. You'd need a very high-powered electron microscope to pull that one off. Not to mention if the dust were that fine it would have ignited in the fire if not in the initial ignition of the thermite (powdered aluminum is explosive enough, I'd imagine nano-aluminum to be akin to flash powder). No thermite would be left un-reacted.
> 
> ...



I thought this was funny. I have some Remote Control airplanes that use Nano servos. its just a really small servo, but it sure as fuck isn't 1/billionth of a meter, more like 3/4" across. Just because the name is nano does not mean that it must be that small, nano in this case just means really really fine, unlike something you would normally be able to get. It takes some special equipment to grind aluminum and iron to very small particles and then mix them in ideal amounts with other components. Not something your cooking up in the basement of your moms house.


If they had made the buildings fall over there would be so much damned evidence they would get busted. They had to make sure the buildings were totally dust and thats what they got. Then all the debris was efficiently carried away and buried and all the steel was melted down, before the 911 commision was finished with their investigation. WOW the Federal police sure are dumb, they didn't secure evidence nor the crime scene, just another fucking blunder by the gubbermint that day?

Fuck man, our government is stupid. Instead of these really fucking expensive cruise missile we use to take out buildings, they cost like a million each, why dont we just load people with parachutes into planes and have them fly the planes at the buildings. Holy shit we could save so much money the economy would be fixed. Buildings would disintegrate in our path, none would resist our superior imperialism!!!! Just think, you could level a city the size of Tokyo with just 27 airplanes!! Why stop there, we must have thousands of old airliners in graveyards in the desert. We could level any city we wanted on a whim without ever having to launch a nuclear weapon and getting all that nasty radiation all over everything.


----------



## olosto (Jun 22, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I thought this was funny. I have some Remote Control airplanes that use Nano servos. its just a really small servo, but it sure as fuck isn't 1/billionth of a meter, more like 3/4" across. Just because the name is nano does not mean that it must be that small, nano in this case just means really really fine, unlike something you would normally be able to get. It takes some special equipment to grind aluminum and iron to very small particles and then mix them in ideal amounts with other components. Not something your cooking up in the basement of your moms house.
> 
> 
> If they had made the buildings fall over there would be so much damned evidence they would get busted. They had to make sure the buildings were totally dust and thats what they got. Then all the debris was efficiently carried away and buried and all the steel was melted down, before the 911 commision was finished with their investigation. WOW the Federal police sure are dumb, they didn't secure evidence nor the crime scene, just another fucking blunder by the gubbermint that day?
> ...


They market those servos with names like nan because they are small. Look up nano, better yet follow this link...

LOL the secret to nano thermites. [Archive] - JREF Forum

Crazy Chainsaw
7th July 2007, 08:29 PM
Nano super thermites, can be very energetic but there is a ration of Aluminum to Aluminum oxide that must be maintained to keep them so, Chloride in any form upset the ratio. 
They are highly reactive to Chloride, you can make them less reactive to chloride by increasing the Aluminum oxide content, and decreasing the energetic fuel the Aluminum.
However if you do that you can not even get them to light a match. 
They just loose to much energy, nano thermites are simply nano particles of Aluminum with thin aluminum oxide layers, the thiner the layer the more Chloride effects them. 
Nano thermites can be excluded by simple tests which are easily conducted with Nano Aluminum particles to recreate the condition of 9/11/2001. 
I would recommend evaporating aluminum with an electrical arc in an oxygen deprived environment. the particles then can precipitate out on a medium with only a small amount of oxide present. 
Be careful though they are highly energetic and highly reactive especially to Chlorides. 
It has taken me years to figure out how to make them, but I finally succeeded and tested them as I thought they react much like thermites only faster especially chemically faster. 
Controlled Demolition with Thermites-Nano thermites is not possible, it is fallacy.

PS. I just felt that I needed to say that after all the work on the spheres and thermites even if no one really cares.
Rahne Everson
7th July 2007, 08:34 PM

Hey I care! 

Very cool work Chainsaw, as always. Good to see you.

e^n
8th July 2007, 06:36 AM

Chainsaw, you're as crazy as ever 

Could you do me a favour if you have some spare time, Max Photon is making the claim that thermite was poured into perimeter columns through bolt access holes in order to heat up said columns and make it appear as though they were warped by fire. I think however that thermite would probably burn through the thin steel at the base of a perimeter wall section in seconds and wouldn't produce the effect he is prescribing to it. I'm sure you're the man to find out 

rwguinn
8th July 2007, 09:05 AM

Nano super thermites, can be very energetic but there is a ration of Aluminum to Aluminum oxide that must be maintained to keep them so, Chloride in any form upset the ratio. 
They are highly reactive to Chloride, you can make them less reactive to chloride by increasing the Aluminum oxide content, and decreasing the energetic fuel the Aluminum.
However if you do that you can not even get them to light a match. 
They just loose to much energy, nano thermites are simply nano particles of Aluminum with thin aluminum oxide layers, the thiner the layer the more Chloride effects them. 
Nano thermites can be excluded by simple tests which are easily conducted with Nano Aluminum particles to recreate the condition of 9/11/2001. 
I would recommend evaporating aluminum with an electrical arc in an oxygen deprived environment. the particles then can precipitate out on a medium with only a small amount of oxide present. 
Be careful though they are highly energetic and highly reactive especially to Chlorides. 
It has taken me years to figure out how to make them, but I finally succeeded and tested them as I thought they react much like thermites only faster especially chemically faster. 
Controlled Demolition with Thermites-Nano thermites is not possible, it is fallacy.

PS. I just felt that I needed to say that after all the work on the spheres and thermites even if no one really cares.

Hey--it sounds like fun. Great work if you can make a living at it!

By the way, CC: As a Public service, maybe you ought to PM Lisa and get your "Muse" designation changed to "Do NOT try this at home!"

MIKILLINI
8th July 2007, 12:45 PM

Crazy Chainsaw, I do believe S. Jones has a problem and is between a rock and a hard place, so to speak, with your revelation of this.

rwguinn
8th July 2007, 02:29 PM

Crazy Chainsaw, I do believe S. Jones has a problem and is between a rock and a hard place, so to speak, with your revelation of this.

not quite right. He already was in the position you describe. It will just be harder for him to ignore it.
Not that he cares a whole lot...

Crazy Chainsaw
8th July 2007, 06:21 PM

Chainsaw, you're as crazy as ever 

Could you do me a favour if you have some spare time, Max Photon is making the claim that thermite was poured into perimeter columns through bolt access holes in order to heat up said columns and make it appear as though they were warped by fire. I think however that thermite would probably burn through the thin steel at the base of a perimeter wall section in seconds and wouldn't produce the effect he is prescribing to it. I'm sure you're the man to find out 

One just one thermite spark in the impact could set off the whole charge and the thermite would create molten iron at 2800c that flowed out of the bottom of the Columns. 
The Columns would have melted not bowed.
However aluminum chloride in the interior of the columns would have produced bowing without melting. Aluminum Chloride was possible from natural reactions in the twin towers.

Crazy Chainsaw
8th July 2007, 06:30 PM

Crazy Chainsaw, I do believe S. Jones has a problem and is between a rock and a hard place, so to speak, with your revelation of this.

If it had not been for Dr. Joneses papers I would not have known how to make Nano thermites, vaporizing aluminum in a Carbon monoxide and nitrogen atmosphere with a high temp electric arc, and letting the aluminum vapor settle on a solid with nano sized holes to act as molds. 
Strip away the thin layer of aluminum then remove the particles from the solid. 
The result is particles smaller than a nano meter, although it is a long involved hard to do process that produces only a few particles at a time.
I am sure there is an easier and faster way to do it but not with what I have available.

Zep
8th July 2007, 07:27 PM

If it had not been for Dr. Joneses papers I would not have known how to make Nano thermites, vaporizing aluminum in a Carbon monoxide and nitrogen atmosphere with a high temp electric arc, and letting the aluminum vapor settle on a solid with nano sized holes to act as molds. 
Strip away the thin layer of aluminum then remove the particles from the solid. 
The result is particles smaller than a nano meter, although it is a long involved hard to do process that produces only a few particles at a time.
I am sure there is an easier and faster way to do it but not with what I have available.Don't forget - you will need a couple of hundred tonnes of this stuff to make any appreciable impression on a building the size of the WTC towers. And you will need to smuggle it into the building in small amounts, so no-one notices.

So let's do the math.

Let's say we need 100 tonnes = 100,000kgs. We can smuggle in and install 100gms per person per day, and there are 10 people in on the deal. That means 1kg per day will be put into each WTC. At that rate, it would take 100,000 days, that is 274 years, to install the required amount of nano-thermite. That's if they never stop for even a day.

Yep, that sure sounds plausible.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 22, 2009)

Olosto, have you ever considered whoever was behind the collapse, if it was indeed sabotaged, may have used something the public has not seen or is unfamiliar with? 

I think I saw you suggest that because thermite can't burn a verticle column, thermite can therefore be ruled out as the compound responsible. Do you believe this to be the case?

We have evidence of thermite at ground zero, there's other data that suggests thermite may have been used. Nobody is saying it's the only thing that could have been used. It could have been plenty of other things. 

But that's the data, it's there, what's the explination for it?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 22, 2009)

I was right. Forget about the actual scientists using large amounts on a blimp (Mythbusters videos, in that link I provided). 

Where is your proof thermite burns for weeks?

And if there is unused thermite, why would you think it brought the towers down, I mean it is unused right?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 22, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Olosto, have you ever considered whoever was behind the collapse, if it was indeed sabotaged, may have used something the public has not seen or is unfamiliar with?
> 
> I think I saw you suggest that because thermite can't burn a verticle column, thermite can therefore be ruled out as the compound responsible. Do you believe this to be the case?
> 
> ...



Jeez padawan, haven't you been reading Olosto's posts? The airplanes hit the building with such massive force, akin to a huge meteor hitting at 25,000 MPH. This caused the aluminum fuselage to vaporize and the force of the impact caused the rust from the iron in the building to also vaporize. this in turn combined the 2 elements to create Nano thermite, which then spread to all levels of the building and at the correct moment all of it went off at the same time and brought the buildings down.. Sounds logical to me. Im sure that explains it. I got a puicture of Baby jesus on my toast too. For real dude!!

For making that claim I am going to assume that any argument made by Olosto is far fetched shit, some of it impossible and most of it improbable. The kinetic energy argument is dead, there wasn't shit for an impact force, if there was planes that hit the ground would vaporize the soil and melt it into glass, but that never happens now does it?


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 22, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I was right. Forget about the actual scientists using large amounts on a blimp (Mythbusters videos, in that link I provided).
> 
> Where is your proof thermite burns for weeks?
> 
> And if there is unused thermite, why would you think it brought the towers down, I mean it is unused right?


Where is your proof that any normal fire would melt iron and steel for 6 weeks. Much more likely thermite was involved as structural fires do not melt steel, they might soften it, but they don't melt it. not hot enough. Why do steel smelting companies use blast furnaces and not papers, desks and filing cabinets to melt steel? Cuz it don't get hot enough!


----------



## olosto (Jun 22, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Jeez padawan, haven't you been reading Olosto's posts? The airplanes hit the building with such massive force, akin to a huge meteor hitting at 25,000 MPH. This caused the aluminum fuselage to vaporize and the force of the impact caused the rust from the iron in the building to also vaporize. this in turn combined the 2 elements to create Nano thermite, which then spread to all levels of the building and at the correct moment all of it went off at the same time and brought the buildings down.. Sounds logical to me. Im sure that explains it. I got a puicture of Baby jesus on my toast too. For real dude!!
> 
> For making that claim I am going to assume that any argument made by Olosto is far fetched shit, some of it impossible and most of it improbable. The kinetic energy argument is dead, there wasn't shit for an impact force, if there was planes that hit the ground would vaporize the soil and melt it into glass, but that never happens now does it?


 
I realize you are short a high school physics class.... 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57680

Plane vaporizes on impact. I have posted this 3 times and the servers are fucking up. 

Take a HS physics class dude, you need it..


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 22, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Small scale, wind tunnel test are performed. With a bit of calculating you can easily figure out what a structure can withstand. Jeez dosnt anyone watch "How It's Made" lol! No high rise in history have collapsed due to fire EVER, 3 fall in one day. WTC7 had a different structural design then WTC1&2. How can both designs be such a pussy when it comes to fire. *All three towers really didnt even have a fire*.... More like a *girl scout fire!* Get ya graham crackers n marshmellows kiddies, uncle bush is gonna try to feed yall some bullshit instead.
> 
> Need i say more
> http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/steel-building-burns-out-but-does-not-collapse/


you're exactly right.

this lady was just chilling when the FIRES took the building down.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 22, 2009)

olosto said:


> It wasn't just the fire, it was the debris that fell on it and took out the supports. Fire dept abandoned it.. Why would anyone want to blow up an abandoned building.. No reason.. There has to be a reason.



Wow... Just wow... U cease to amaze me. We all seen pics and vids. There is NO major structural damages. Especially to any supports!! It took several hours for it to come down, or else it wouldnt of stood that long in the first place. Damn how blind are you!?! If #7 supports were that badly damaged it would have fallen immedeatly. And dont give that fire weakened the rest bullshit! 

Obviously you need the physics class homie, cause you still seem to think a dirty burn (normal fire) can reach temps high enough to deform and/or melt structural grade steel...

And dont forget what else u learned in HS physics/basicfuckin science... There is a difference between heat and temperature. Or do u need a wake up call on that too?


----------



## olosto (Jun 22, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Wow... Just wow... U cease to amaze me. We all seen pics and vids. There is NO major structural damages.


Thats an outright lie.. Fire fighters abandoned the building because the fires and strustural conditions. They had bigger things to worry about and knew it would either collase or not reguardless of what they did. There were also reports that the first few floors had been incurred by debris.. You need to saty off this thread unless you are going to site the things your saying because the bullsit has not stpped with you and now everything you say is labeled bs. when you get so many things wrong with no cites to back yourself up, then you lose...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 22, 2009)

olosto said:


> I realize you are short a high school physics class....
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57680
> 
> Plane vaporizes on impact. I have posted this 3 times and the servers are fucking up.
> ...



Ok lets go with your theory then shall we.

If the plane vaporizes on impact, then why do we find parts of the airplane, some of them out in the streets and on top of other buildings? Also, if it were to vaporize then lets summarize what would happen to the buildings, lets use a quote from the article you linked shall we?...."Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact."

What is more dense Mr high school physics dude? Steel or concrete? Steel of course! Not even a comparison. So your plane hitting an even more dense object should have vaporized even more completely, but FUCK NO that didn't happen. shit some of the terrorists passports were found out in the street, they are only made of paper and they fucking survived? You saw the pics of airplane parts I linked, makes your vaporized airplane theory kinda disproven right there don't it? And if the concrete was undamaged then by god the fucking building sure as shit should not have disintegrated in mid air now should it?

Do you see what this is making your kinetic energy theory look like? a Laughing stock, No One here except you thinks the plane hit with so much kinetic force that it melted the building. Your kinetic energy theory is not only absurd but an affront to common sensibilities.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 23, 2009)

olosto said:


> Thats an outright lie.. Fire fighters abandoned the building because the fires and strustural conditions. They had bigger things to worry about and knew it would either collase or not reguardless of what they did. There were also reports that the first few floors had been incurred by debris.. You need to saty off this thread unless you are going to site the things your saying because the bullsit has not stpped with you and now everything you say is labeled bs. when you get so many things wrong with no cites to back yourself up, then you lose...



Hah! Hahahah... Ur the one stating outright lies! What u say mimics that of the gubbermint=LIES! I have sourced my posts. But apparently u ignore that too. Who the fuck are u to tell me to stay off this thread anyway! Dont get upset cause im prooving u wrong, kay?

"Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint."

References
http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html

I didnt say there wasnt any major damage. There is major damage to the exoskeleton. Only minor damage to structural(supports). Read it right and quit jumping the gun to call me a liar! If it were that much structural damage(to support columns) the building wouldnt have stood half the day. On fire or not.. Yes it might have been abanndoned, only cause no one was in that building anyway. There are people to rescue across the street.

I only connect iron for a living.. What the fuck do I know right? Lol u really are too deep in defending the gubbermint. No hope for u now..


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 23, 2009)

My time is short guys... I will get back to all of your replies.

On the woman standing in the hole...

While not the safest place to stand, it would be one of the coolest. That hole was feeding the majority of the 7 story blaze with oxygen. Air would be sucking past there creating a pretty cool vacuum. The fire itself was over 3 stories above. I would expect that she eventually jumped before the building collapsed as the fire engulfed the areas around her. I don't have time to research now... but that would be my guess. I mean... there is molten metal spitting out that one corner on the other side... please stop arguing that the fire wasn't hot.

Heat rises. Fire consumes oxygen. A tunnel feeding a fire above with oxygen will be cooled.

bbl with more.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> My time is short guys... I will get back to all of your replies.
> 
> On the woman standing in the hole...
> 
> ...



Ummm no, thats not how it works, if air were being sucked in it would suck her inside. Large fires can create huge winds. In California the grass fire caused winds in excess of 80 MPH in some areas. Also there is no where for all the massive heat ( Must be in excess of 2900F to melt) to escape. As has already been proven by you with your gas tanker fire the beams only deformed they did not melt into liquid. So if we have liquid metal pouring out of the other side we either have a fire that is hotter than possible, or thermite has melted the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. the fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. Wow anyone who thinks regular fire can melt steel is living in fantasy land. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. How many steel buildings must I show with fires MUCH MUCH more severe than the 911 fires, yet you still claim that these buildings somehow got so hot that they melted and disintegrated before our very eyes.

As far as evacuation of WTC7. well fucking DUH. you never leave people in a burning building if they can get out. Of course they evacuated, it had nothing to do with a possible collapse. it had all to do with the fact there are giant skyscrapers falling all around you and the fucking building is on fire. I don't know about where you live, buit where Im from the firefighters get everyone out of burning buildings first before anything else. I would like to see a link of the facts showing the commanders evacing the building only because they thought it would fall, and NOT because its in a danger zone or on fire. Ridiculous claim.

Every building in a 2 block area was evacuated, not because they thought they were gonna fall either. Wonder why? Guess.

Even if the top floors fell because of structural problems. the top might have fallen over and off, but it certainly does not have enough force to crush the building below, it should have fallen over and off while leaving the building below the crash area completely intact.

As far as WTC 7. its unexpalinable by the govt why it fell. Why is that? They can find a way to explain the impossible for the towers, but are totally stumped by this one? What Gives?

Im not going to post on this anymore, its stupid to think those buildings just "fell" down. They were made to come down and NO PERSON NO MATTER HOW GOOD HIS ARGUMENT WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE. 

Those buildings were demoed, those people were murdered and the world lives under the Lie of it all. It was done on purpose to further an agenda, an agenda that will take a few more years to come to full fruition but it will come and it will not be good.

Tell a Lie long enough and people will be convinced it is the truth. We learned that from the Nazis, and I can tell it is true, there are certainly plenty of people who let themselves be deceived by the Gubbermint.


----------



## huffy420 (Jun 23, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Even if the top floors fell because of structural problems. the top might have fallen over and off, but it certainly does not have enough force to crush the building below, it should have fallen over and off while leaving the building below the crash area completely intact.



EXACTLY! Case fuckin closed! 

Heat rises, fire rises. There is no way to damage the lower floors, and dont give us tha jet fuel or kenetic energy bullshit. U even said it urself!! "Melted steel pouring out the other side". REGULAR(dirty burn) FIRE CAN NOT MELT STEEL! 

Anyone stupid enough to believe 80 floors of concrete and steel BELOW the crash site can be reduced to pieces small enough to fit on a flatbed in mere seconds is a fool! Yall still believe in the Tooth Fairy as well?


Ima bounce out with NoDrama on this one. Its like trying to teach 2nd graders trigonometry... U need to seriously take the blind fold off. Peace out and have fun gettin brainwashed by the media and gubbermint. 

"Im the puppet master, playing with your life" -hedPE


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 23, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Im not going to post on this anymore, its stupid to think those buildings just "fell" down. They were made to come down and NO PERSON NO MATTER HOW GOOD HIS ARGUMENT WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.


 
Dude, I don't think the official report is accurate either, but I think this is a critical mistake on your part. You have to be open to ALL the data available.

Help be part of the solution for progress, this kind of attitude just makes you look like a little kid throwing a tantrum, I don't mean that to be offensive, I know exactly how you feel, like the evidence is so clear it's frustrating coming back in everytime and reposting the same stuff over and over, trust me man, I get it. But think about how annoying it is from the other side, they do the same stuff, there's a few examples on this thread already about guys on the right, defending the official report with just as much frustration as you have. It's equal, the way to get past that shit is forget about personal attacks and all that other pointless bullshit that the 911 discussion automatically brings to the table, pretend your talking to a robot that doesn't have any emotions, or an emotionless child when you explain your views on 911.

Just like when you talk about religion, this is a touchy subject, if you include personal attacks it just gets ugly and always ends up exactly where it started, epicly pointless everytime.

So I just hope you take that into consideration.

No disrespect.


----------



## olosto (Jun 23, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Ok lets go with your theory then shall we.
> 
> If the plane vaporizes on impact, then why do we find parts of the airplane, some of them out in the streets and on top of other buildings? Also, if it were to vaporize then lets summarize what would happen to the buildings, lets use a quote from the article you linked shall we?...."Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact."
> 
> ...


You just keep on making assumptions don't you. Stop making assumptions and maybe you will understand more. I never said that the plane melted the building. I said that the plane impact imparted significant heat to the building and proved it. If you look at the video there are parts of the plane that do not make contact with a solid object and they survive. Where the plane impacted the building vaporization.. An engine could have easily not hit a support and simply plowed in one side of the building and out the other.. You said that the concrete slab is more dense and then go on to say how undamaged it was. You cannot have it both ways. Yes the concrete slab is more dense but the jet was many times larger. We could aregue the small details all day the the fact oof the matter is that you are wrong. The plane imparted siginificant energy/heat to the building and I have proved it. You can say no all day but untill you provide me with scientific links that are from unbiased sources, you are just attacking me because you do not like the fact that I am right and your consipracy theory that you hold so dear is bullshit.

Im done here, I do not have the capability to convince someone that is emotionally invested into being right about something that most americans believe is bullshit. And if you are going to quote polls or some BS, listen: If Americans truely thought the government did this, we the people would dismantle it. Period.


----------



## olosto (Jun 23, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Dude, I don't think the official report is accurate either, but I think this is a critical mistake on your part. You have to be open to ALL the data available.
> 
> Help be part of the solution for progress, this kind of attitude just makes you look like a little kid throwing a tantrum, I don't mean that to be offensive, I know exactly how you feel, like the evidence is so clear it's frustrating coming back in everytime and reposting the same stuff over and over, trust me man, I get it. But think about how annoying it is from the other side, they do the same stuff, there's a few examples on this thread already about guys on the right, defending the official report with just as much frustration as you have. It's equal, the way to get past that shit is forget about personal attacks and all that other pointless bullshit that the 911 discussion automatically brings to the table, pretend your talking to a robot that doesn't have any emotions, or an emotionless child when you explain your views on 911.
> 
> ...


Plus rep! Great post. Its not an attack


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 23, 2009)

olosto said:


> I never said that the plane melted the building. I said that the plane impact imparted significant heat to the building and proved it.


You didn't prove anything ... you only think you did ... but it doesn't add up so we disregarded it ... and will continue to do so.



olosto said:


> If you look at the video there are parts of the plane that do not make contact with a solid object and they survive.


Complete and total nonsense ... and No already explained why ... 




olosto said:


> Where the plane impacted the building vaporization.. An engine could have easily not hit a support and simply plowed in one side of the building and out the other..


Again pure nonsense ... you are simply grasping at straws ... and not making it I might add. As far as we are concerned this is another bogus argument few accept or buy.



olosto said:


> You said that the concrete slab is more dense and then go on to say how undamaged it was.


It's not both ways you just what to imply that as part of your double talk. Even though you have tried several post you can't confuse the issue. At least to those with eyes that can see.


olosto said:


> Yes the concrete slab is more dense but the jet was many times larger. We could aregue the small details all day the the fact oof the matter is that you are wrong.


It's pretty obvious to most of us that you are the one that is wrong ... and continue to be so.




olosto said:


> The plane imparted siginificant energy/heat to the building and I have proved it.


No you haven't proven anything ... just like No said ... this is a bogus argument and will not be accepted ... when you bring it up again you will get the same response ... bogus argument ...we have dismissed it as such. 



olosto said:


> You can say no all day but untill you provide me with scientific links


Been there done that ... if you can't accept them too bad. We really don't care.



olosto said:


> that are from unbiased sources,


Been there done this too ... most can see the evidence is clear ... it's really not important that you see it ... it's pretty clear the brain washed can't see it even when it bites them on the ass.



olosto said:


> you are just attacking me because you do not like the fact that I am right and your consipracy theory that you hold so dear is bullshit.


No we attack you because you hand out a bunch of shit and we are calling you on it ... nothing more ... I told you I will not let you get away with any of the bullshit ... and it's the government cock and bull story that only a few brainwashed people buy ... you couldn't prove the government's bullshit is true ... and you never will. At least not for those that have half a brain and can see.



olosto said:


> Im done here,


You were done when you started tried to hand us a ration of shit.



olosto said:


> I do not have the capability to convince someone that is emotionally invested into being right about something that most americans believe is bullshit.


Here is an excellent example of how you spew out shit ... I've ask you before to show us a poll where most american believe 911 was an inside job is bullshit ... you haven't produced it because there isn't any. So when you make clearly false statements like this, it's very easy to disregard anything you say.



olosto said:


> And if you are going to quote polls or some BS, listen: If Americans truely thought the government did this, we the people would dismantle it. Period.


Or really? ... and what do you call the familes of the victims? What do you call all those engineers along with a great many other calling for a new investigation... they are not dismantling it? .... see another bullshit argument of yours blown ... your bullshit theories have been debunked ... by me and others ... it will no longer be looked at or accepted as a valid argument ... if you continue to post the same bullshit you will get the same response.


----------



## olosto (Jun 23, 2009)

Who is this "we" shit you talk of.. You are crazy.. lol


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 23, 2009)

olosto said:


> Who is this "we" shit you talk of.. You are crazy.. lol


I am apart of this "we". i don't believe everything the government tells me. false flags are used all the time.. i was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking about the Iranian government "staging" an event to win over their people... 

WE STAGED... WE WON OVER OUR PEOPLE

why would other countries do it and not ours? it's all just a game...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 23, 2009)

olosto said:


> Who is this "we" shit you talk of.. You are crazy.. lol



Umm everyone else but you, even the government believers stay away from the friction/kinetic energy theory. So that basically leaves you standing there alone.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 23, 2009)

Thanks No and Jf for filling in clueless ...not that it helps ... in his bazaar world those that can see the truth are crazy ... nothing new there guys ... we might as well move along.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 23, 2009)

I don't believe the official report. There are way too many more questions to answer to even think it's a closed case...

That's not to say the government planned it, but I don't think there's any doubt they failed to act an unprecidented amount that day, the next question would be if anyone in our government knew anything about the attacks before they took place...

... to that question, I think it's a clear yes. To me, that makes 911 a domestic act of terrorism that needs further investigation. That's really what it comes down to.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 23, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Ummm no, thats not how it works, if air were being sucked in it would suck her inside. Large fires can create huge winds. In California the grass fire caused winds in excess of 80 MPH in some areas. Also there is no where for all the massive heat ( Must be in excess of 2900F to melt) to escape.


So... you think you can estimate the draw of vacuum of a fire being fed on all sides through asymmetric holes. Awesome. You win armchair forensic science engineer of the year. You sir, rock harder than Dokken.



NoDrama said:


> As has already been proven by you with your gas tanker fire the beams only deformed they did not melt into liquid. So if we have liquid metal pouring out of the other side we either have a fire that is hotter than possible, or thermite has melted the steel.


It's aluminum.




NoDrama said:


> The fires are not capable of melting the steel. the fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel.


You keep saying that... you keep not demonstrating it. You keep ignoring the gas fire 1/3 the size with less combustible material... that melted the steel.




NoDrama said:


> Wow anyone who thinks regular fire can melt steel is living in fantasy land.


So... the wtc fires were "regular" fires... and the truck fire wasn't? Is that your meaning?



NoDrama said:


> The fires are not capable of melting the steel. The fires are not capable of melting the steel. How many steel buildings must I show with fires MUCH MUCH more severe than the 911 fires, yet you still claim that these buildings somehow got so hot that they melted and disintegrated before our very eyes.


Dude... show me one that was hit with a 767. 

Here is the thing... you don't understand what 43kj/kg of energy can do. You just aren't going to. I am not going to be able to ever convince you of the unique problems with this unique experience.

You will show me pictures of the hotel fire which didn't cause it to fall in its own footprint. You do not mention that the building was mostly empty/under construction. You show the dramatic pictures of a cool fire and say "FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL" 800 times... Ok. 







Looks like the steel is deformed all over to me. Why is that?

An empty building a few floors tall... with deformed steel. 

No jet slamming into the thing. No 20,000 gallons of jet fuel. No oppressive weight several times its own size falling from above. No office furniture... nowhere near the miles of cabling, etc. Just a shell... and some walls... and yet...



NoDrama said:


> As far as evacuation of WTC7. well fucking DUH. you never leave people in a burning building if they can get out. Of course they evacuated, it had nothing to do with a possible collapse. it had all to do with the fact there are giant skyscrapers falling all around you and the fucking building is on fire. I don't know about where you live, buit where Im from the firefighters get everyone out of burning buildings first before anything else. I would like to see a link of the facts showing the commanders evacing the building only because they thought it would fall, and NOT because its in a danger zone or on fire. Ridiculous claim.


I assume you aren't talking to me here... I never mentioned evacuation. I said they pulled rescue from the area because it was unstable and going to come down.



NoDrama said:


> Even if the top floors fell because of structural problems. the top might have fallen over and off, but it certainly does not have enough force to crush the building below, it should have fallen over and off while leaving the building below the crash area completely intact.


The day you drop a 20 story building on top of an 80 story one from 5 floors you can wage this argument... otherwise you are simply saying "nuh uh", which just isn't solid enough.



NoDrama said:


> As far as WTC 7. its unexpalinable by the govt why it fell. Why is that? They can find a way to explain the impossible for the towers, but are totally stumped by this one? What Gives?


It is hard work. There is no crystal ball. They didn't "give you a story". They said... we tried and failed to come up with an answer. The amount of prep time just to pull this off and they didn't have a "reason" in their back pockets? WTF? Either they are in on it or they aren't. Either they are feeding you shit or they aren't. Did they just waste all their imagination on planning the event?



NoDrama said:


> Im not going to post on this anymore, its stupid to think those buildings just "fell" down.


Wanna know what's stupid?



NoDrama said:


> They were made to come down and NO PERSON NO MATTER HOW GOOD HIS ARGUMENT WILL EVER EVER EVER EVER CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.


That. Pretty cut and dry really. You don't care about the truth. You need this more.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 23, 2009)

Look... I'd smoke with any of you. I've smoked with bigger assholes than all of you... hell I do that smoking alone. I would drink beers and argue whatever. This gets personal on either side because of the gravity of the tragedy. Try to keep it light. Try to keep it in perspective.

I'm not from the government. I'm not here to help you. I am not an idiot. I am not gullible. I just disagree. It is easy to demonize or in some way attribute a handicap to people of differing opinion... because a competent rational person, with no vested interest who disagrees with you threatens your belief system more than what you think is your worst nightmare. It is easy to say "yer stupid". It will be harder to prove me so.

BTW... nano thermite has a MUCH lower ignition temp requirement.


----------



## olosto (Jun 24, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Look... I'd smoke with any of you. I've smoked with bigger assholes than all of you... hell I do that smoking alone. I would drink beers and argue whatever. This gets personal on either side because of the gravity of the tragedy. Try to keep it light. Try to keep it in perspective.
> 
> I'm not from the government. I'm not here to help you. I am not an idiot. I am not gullible. I just disagree. It is easy to demonize or in some way attribute a handicap to people of differing opinion... because a competent rational person, with no vested interest who disagrees with you threatens your belief system more than what you think is your worst nightmare. It is easy to say "yer stupid". It will be harder to prove me so.
> 
> BTW... nano thermite has a MUCH lower ignition temp requirement.


agreed.. No need to be a prick.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 24, 2009)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

It's all there. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't correct. Each floor could sustain 1,300 tons more than its own weight. 15 to 30 floors weighed quite a bit more.

Primarily the problems would be here... with the angle clips. 











The building was designed to take lateral forces to withstand hurricane winds... not survive impact from 30 stories dropping on it. It was designed not to move in the wind. Big wind. It would fall straight down, because it was on steel rails... designed to resist devastating winds from any direction. That is why it fell down. 

I know... I didn't expect it to fall that way either...








You understand, each of those floors is an acre. Acres of concrete falling... really try and understand the magnitude of that on a floor that can sustain less than twice its own weight.


BTW... the best reason for sticking with WTC 1&2, is that they are pre-requisites for 7. If I dispel that myth... for the most part... when I get to 7 I have a complete case. 

Sick of that bridge yet? Now that you get the relevance?

"You will be... you will be..."
-Yoda


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2009)

I didn't say I could estimate the draw, but you obviously alluded to it when you said it must have been good enough to keep the 3000F temps from making her burst into flames.

Molten aluminum is silver in color when it is melted. NOT GLOWING RED HOT! And if you try and say "well its aluminum with other glowing things in it"you can save your breath.

Your gas fire was not sprayed all over the place and then lit up to create a huge ball of flame, basically burning 95% of the fuel up in 1 instant of time. I want to know just how long do you suppose the fires in the towers were being fueled by JET A? In your bridge link the beams did not melt, they only deformed. Remember your picture you originally posted? you said it was melted metal on the ground? Yeah that's not melted metal buddy,its water from having the fire put out. Molten steel does not look all silvery and mirror finished at all. Also the truck fire was very concentrated, the fuel was being held in a container so therefore the ignition source and therefor heat source were very concentrated. This is not like the WTC buildings at all now is it? And even if it did melt 6 beams, so what, there are 100,000 more its going to need to melt also to cause the buildings to disintegrate like that.
What oppressive weight is pushing down on the building? Its been dealing with that weight under huge wind loads for decades now, why did it all of a sudden get heavier? Don't tell me that lightweight plane caused it, cuz Olosto already "proved" that they disintegrated, and disintegrated stuff doesn't weigh anything. If anything the load got lighter, there was less building to hold up.

Thats not deformation you see there, that how the building was designed, And its not being used so much to refute the towers fires so much as WTC building 7. They are nearly the same size, although the Mandarin is not built quite as heavy duty as the Salomon Bros Building. Lets not forget to mention the fireworks factory that caused the fires in the first place. the building was under construction and it was not full of office furniture. But gunpowder burns hotter than paper and if you would have checked my links I already addressed this issue anyway. And even if it were deformed, that isn't really what happened to the towers is it? They don't deform at all, they just disintegrate in mid air. You should really try reading more of the articles you find, you would have found out that the "kink"in the building is a design feature and that there was a fireworks factory in the building. Your "After" picture is the same building, the only difference is the soot marks and loss of windows. Give it a coat of paint and it will look good as new. No deformation at all, none.

I could have sworn you said they were evacuated, my bad. regardless they did not "Know" it was going to fall, they could only speculate.

I don't have a skyscraper play set to prove my theory do I? But neither do you to disprove it.

You will believe a story where all sorts of inconsistencies abound, but when it comes time to explain the most compelling evidence of inside job, your willing to accept" We don't know"?. If they can send a man to the fucking moon and back, and supposedly figure out how 2 buildings were brought down by planes when it really isn't possible but they have no explanation at all for this one? Might as well be an admission of guilt. Or at the very least incompetence. And if they are incompetent then their explanation for the 2 towers must be at fault also.

I hope your government takes good care of you, I'm sure you know and believe they will. 


Your picture shows a nice outer column, the outer columns are not what supports the weight of the building. The CORE SUPPORTS THE BUILDING, not the outside walls. Lets also not forget The floor structure was then installed between the outer perimeter wall and the inner core. The floors also came in pre-assembled sections, consisting of 32-inch-deep (81-cm) trusses topped with a corrugated metal surface. Concrete was then poured over the top and tile was installed. The floors are primarily made of steel, not concrete.

It was designed to not move in the wind eh? http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm................"In the end, they designed the towers so they could sway about 3 feet in either direction. To minimize the sway sensation, they installed about 10,000 *visco-elastic dampers* between support columns and floor trusses throughout the building. The special visco-elastic material in these dampers could move somewhat, but it would snap back to its original shape. In other words, it could give a little and then return to its initial position, absorbing much of the shock of the building's swaying motion".

I guess 6 feet of movement isn't movement at all eh?


In your article it states that NIST was able to do a metallurgical analysis of the steel, what they fail to mention is that the analysis was not done on the actual WTC steel, as all of it was recycled before any entity could test it. No instead they just took structural steel and then came up with a theory that would explain how it all went down. The government has proven time and time again that they are incompetent, anything the government touches gets screwed up. 911 is very politically charged also, and if any of them had said it was an inside job, well im sure they all would have lost their jobs.


All of these theories of yours do nothing to explain WTC#7 Salomon Bros building. No plane hit, no fires that engulfed any part of a floor, you can try to make it a prerequisite, but its not relevant. Since the gubbermint can't come up with an explanation I am assuming you also cannot come up with one. And the fires and the hole in the side aren't enough to do that. A gasoline fed fire is a completely different animal from a desk and paper fire.

"I'm not afraid". -Luke Skywalker

Your Yoda quote is one of my favorites in all of moviedom, love the Empire Strikes Back!! Who knew a Muppet could have such a short but powerful line.


----------



## olosto (Jun 24, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Your gas fire was not sprayed all over the place and then lit up to create a huge ball of flame, basically burning 95% of the fuel up in 1 instant of time. I want to know just how long do you suppose the fires in the towers were being fueled by JET A?


This is another assumption on your part with no science or experts to back it up. As long as you make assumptions, were going to have problems....

I submit that the gas took much longer than an instant. Here in Cali we goto the desert and set things on fire..alot. I can tell you that a gallon of gas poured over the shed will last a long time. The shed was in ashes while pools of gas were still on fire. 

I also submit, tho i have no proof, that there was not sufficient surface area (remember its not the gas that burns but the fumes...), to instantly ignite thousands of pounds of fuel instantaniously. It just does not happen that way. Watch some plane crashes where the plane burns for quite some time after the crash. Happens all the time..


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 24, 2009)

I guess this is what you guys are advocating eh?
(Taken from another board, but it fits perfectly)

Bush: I`m an idiot who can barely read or write but I have a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists tried to blow up the buildings once, why don`t we just blow them up and blame it on the terrorists?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President you don`t understand. It`s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves, plant the bombs, and make it look like exploding planes that brought the buildings down.
That way we involve more people, stand a greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!
Cheney: Of course just toppling the twin towers will never be enough. We will never get a war mandate if we just topple the twin towers, we also need to shoot a missile at the Pentagon, and then obviously we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.
Rumsfeld: Yeah it goes without saying the public outrage won`t be enough without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Cheney: And the Pentagon crash--we have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it was a cruise missile..
Bush: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
Cheney: Because it`s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane.
Bush: But aren't`t we using two planes on the Twin Towers?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile and say it was a plane because it`s sneakier that way.
Bush: Duh...O.K.
Rumsfeld: The other good thing about saying it was a passenger jet, is that way we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a missing crew and plane.

And then apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a self-serving paean/memoir to her "dead husband", again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2009)

olosto said:


> This is another assumption on your part with no science or experts to back it up. As long as you make assumptions, were going to have problems....
> 
> I submit that the gas took much longer than an instant. Here in Cali we goto the desert and set things on fire..alot. I can tell you that a gallon of gas poured over the shed will last a long time. The shed was in ashes while pools of gas were still on fire.
> 
> I also submit, tho i have no proof, that there was not sufficient surface area (remember its not the gas that burns but the fumes...), to instantly ignite thousands of pounds of fuel instantaniously. It just does not happen that way. Watch some plane crashes where the plane burns for quite some time after the crash. Happens all the time..


pretty sure the reason a plane keeps on burning is because its on fire, not because of the fuel. Surely you aren't advocating that things only burn if they are doused with fuel? Passenger seats are made of fabric, lots of burnable plastics too, lets not forget the baggage and all the wiring that has combustible insulation. these are the things you see burning after a crash, not the fuel. Go ahead and douse something out in the desert with Jet A, which is totally different than gasoline BTW. Take a good 2 gallon cider vinegar jar made of glass and make it into a GIANT Molotov cocktail. Now heres the important thing, make sure you hurl that thing at near 500 MPH to get the correct effect. Take a chronograph watch and time how long the flames stay on fire. Do this about 20 times and get back to us on your timed results. You get anything close to 50+ minutes of burn time? Cuz if you don't get 50 minutes or more then it kind of disproves your theory that the fuel is what created the ultra hot fire. You don't really have to throw it that fast, hell you can just pour it all over, just make sure you are timing it. I bet you don't even get burn times of 10 minutes.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I guess this is what you guys are advocating eh?
> (Taken from another board, but it fits perfectly)
> 
> Bush: I`m an idiot who can barely read or write but I have a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists tried to blow up the buildings once, why don`t we just blow them up and blame it on the terrorists?
> ...



Wow I would say your guess is way off, I highly doubt thats the way it went LOL, Bush can barely read or write huh? Or is that the way you say he wasn't the smartest pres we ever had? Because I can certainly agree with that statement.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> My time is short guys... I will get back to all of your replies.
> 
> On the woman standing in the hole...
> 
> ...



One other thing about this and your explanation. if the fire is 3 storys above her, then how did the hole she is standing in get there? Isn't that the hole the plane made when it impacted? And if it is such a hole then that MUST be where the fire is, or are you saying the fire skipped a few floors from where the plane hit and magically started the burn 30 feet above the impact? Which is it? Either the plane made that hole she is standing in, or it did not, and if it did then that would be where the fire is, not up 3 floors. Doesn't make alot of sense what you are saying here. And that liquid metal you see is either Iron or Steel, which means the fires must be in excess of 3000. It couldn't be aluminum, when aluminum melts it keeps its silvery color, Iron/steel glows white hot when its melted.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 24, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> One other thing about this and your explanation. if the fire is 3 storys above her, then how did the hole she is standing in get there? Isn't that the hole the plane made when it impacted? And if it is such a hole then that MUST be where the fire is, or are you saying the fire skipped a few floors from where the plane hit and magically started the burn 30 feet above the impact? Which is it? Either the plane made that hole she is standing in, or it did not, and if it did then that would be where the fire is, not up 3 floors. Doesn't make alot of sense what you are saying here. And that liquid metal you see is either Iron or Steel, which means the fires must be in excess of 3000. It couldn't be aluminum, when aluminum melts it keeps its silvery color, Iron/steel glows white hot when its melted.


lol how the hell didn't i catch that . his statement made zero since


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 24, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> One other thing about this and your explanation. if the fire is 3 storys above her, then how did the hole she is standing in get there? Isn't that the hole the plane made when it impacted? And if it is such a hole then that MUST be where the fire is, or are you saying the fire skipped a few floors from where the plane hit and magically started the burn 30 feet above the impact? Which is it? Either the plane made that hole she is standing in, or it did not, and if it did then that would be where the fire is, not up 3 floors. Doesn't make alot of sense what you are saying here. And that liquid metal you see is either Iron or Steel, which means the fires must be in excess of 3000. It couldn't be aluminum, when aluminum melts it keeps its silvery color, Iron/steel glows white hot when its melted.



One other thing to add, you can clearly see her hair in the picture. her hair is not windswept like you would see if there was so much air being sucked up into the building. Nuff said about that, I think we can clearly see that there is no large fire behind her, or 3 floors up. not a large enough one to do what you are hypothesizing anyway.

One more thing, Why do you keep quoting" I didn't think it would fall that way"?
If your trying to convey my sentiments on this you should be quoting " I didn't think it would fall" period.


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 25, 2009)

Someone was asking a while back how many people it would take to be on it? I don't know but 130,000 kept the secret of the manhattan project if this helps get a closer idea of what is capable.


----------



## olosto (Jun 25, 2009)

Actually they did not and the data and plans were stolen by the russians....


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 25, 2009)

olosto said:


> Actually they did not and the data and plans were stolen by the russians....


Yeah that happened after the project was finished and we had already used the bombs, so that doesn't really count as keeping a secret when you already let the cat out of the bag.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 26, 2009)

The cat is out of the bag for 911 too ... it's just that some people can't see it or don't want to see it.


----------



## natrone23 (Jun 29, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I guess this is what you guys are advocating eh?
> (Taken from another board, but it fits perfectly)
> 
> Bush: I`m an idiot who can barely read or write but I have a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists tried to blow up the buildings once, why don`t we just blow them up and blame it on the terrorists?
> ...


These guys are good


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 29, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> One other thing to add, you can clearly see her hair in the picture. her hair is not windswept like you would see if there was so much air being sucked up into the building. Nuff said about that, I think we can clearly see that there is no large fire behind her, or 3 floors up. not a large enough one to do what you are hypothesizing anyway.
> 
> One more thing, Why do you keep quoting" I didn't think it would fall that way"?
> If your trying to convey my sentiments on this you should be quoting " I didn't think it would fall" period.




LOL... so are you now saying that the building wasn't on fire? Did Bush stop the wind too?


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 29, 2009)

I got it... it was all cgi, projectors, and lsd...


I have a personal question to ask...


How many theories have you been through? Were you among the "no planes" crowd? What about the "all the jews took the day off" thing? How bout "there is no AlQueda"? "Flight 93 was shot down."? "93 landed in Ohio"? 


What theories have you abandoned already? I am asking you to be honest.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 29, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> LOL... so are you now saying that the building wasn't on fire? Did Bush stop the wind too?



NO! Actually I just blew your argument out of the water.


----------



## what... huh? (Jun 29, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> NO! Actually I just blew your argument out of the water.


It was your argument that it would be some sort of vortex with hurricane force winds. I said that oxygen would be feeding the fire through there, and would likely be the coolest place to be, barring being able to access a stairwell and descend.


Did she end up jumping?


----------



## mexiblunt (Jun 29, 2009)

As many different theories as there are and or could be it's not really about the theories it's more the OFFICIAL CONCLUSION. what (your) theory?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 29, 2009)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public
It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the evidence within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed. And then it was very odd to me when I learned that *FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position* at their command center at Pier 92 on *September 10th, one day before the attacks!*

On September 11, 2001, the area known as Ground Zero was sealed from the public eye. Sonnenfeld, however, was given unrestricted access enabling him to document for the investigation (that never took place) and provide some sanitized pool video to virtually every news network in the world. The tapes that *reveal* some of the *anomalies *which he discovered at Ground Zero *are still in his possession.*
Accused of a crime that did not occur in a manifest frame-up scenario, especially in light of ensuing events [1], Kurt Sonnenfeld has been persecuted across continents. After several years of fear, injustice and isolation, he has decided to take a public stand against the Governments official story and is prepared to submit his material to the close scrutiny of reliable experts.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.htmlThe Controlled Collapse Of WTC 7
Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. 
For a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC 7 did, *ALL* of the load bearing members must fail at the *exact same moment*. This is achieved in controlled demolitions.
There is also a RealMedia video showing evidence of cutter charges in WTC 7 collapse in the link. Also there is a video showing what happens when a building collapse without explosives. Not to mention several images of other building that collapse without explosives.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 29, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> It was your argument that it would be some sort of vortex with hurricane force winds. I said that oxygen would be feeding the fire through there, and would likely be the coolest place to be, barring being able to access a stairwell and descend.
> 
> 
> Did she end up jumping?


Well good sir just how much wind would have to exist for you to not feel the so called steel melting Fire right behind her? Go stick your ass next to the oven on its highest temp and tell me if it only needs a gentle draft to keep your ass from burning. Simple kindergarten physics, fire is not just fire, it is heat by three methods, Convection, conduction and radiation. Your theory that a small draft will dissipate all the heat that must be right behind her is totally wrong. Its either that or the fire is not behind her, but 3 stories up, and then for that to be the case then the hole she is standing was not created by the plane. So which is it?

And I certainly never said it would be hurricane force winds now did I? you just got caught making shit up YET AGAIN!!! You are a Shill!! Anyone on this forum can go back and read the damned things I have posted, NO WHERE DID I SAY THAT!!!! You ever see a fashion model shoot? You know they get those little fans out to make the girls hair fly back? You think that is hurricane force winds? The woman standing in the hole doesn't even have that. Again your theory is demonstrably wrong and you have been yet again proven to be a liar or at the very least someone who misquotes and embellishes everything anyone else writes. I could see if I was actually talking to you, and you just weren't able to recall the exact thing I said, but its the written word buddy, if you can't read then you shouldn't be here. Now go away before you make another complete ass of yourself.


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 29, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I got it... it was all cgi, projectors, and lsd...
> 
> 
> I have a personal question to ask...
> ...



How many theories have I expounded on here? Just the same one, you are just trying to make a comeback by trying so very hard to discredit me by coming up with lies , lies and more lies. Anyone who is following this thread has already thrown anything you say out the window, as seen by the lack of any support on your end of things. If anyone has tried to come up with multiple harebrained theories to try and prove impossibilities is you.

You still haven't addressed the "Molten Aluminum" theory of yours I already disproved, got no snappy comebacks for that one eh? I will take your silence on all the other things as your admission of defeat. 

Thanks for Playing!


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jun 29, 2009)

NoDrama...GrowRebel... i've tried to rep you guys a lot during this thread. however, it appears i can only rep you guys so many times. you guys know A LOT about this subject. i applaud you 2 . keep up the fight for truth


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks JF .... I will do all I can to keep folks informed about 911 ... knowledge is power and the elite fears a well informed public.

Check this one out folks ... 
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1409A BURIED 60 Minutes INTERVIEW / INDICTMENT
The video employs clips from a 2004 60 Minutes Interview with 2001-2003 Secretary of the Treasury, Paul ONeil. ONeil,a Permanent Member of the then formed NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC), was eventually FIRED in 2003, for what he OPPOSED and witnessed in the Early days of the JUST elected 2001 Bush Whitehouse. He was appalled at the Secrecy and Contradictions in the George Bush he thought he knew. It was apparent a new agenda was rollingand he wanted NO part in it. War plans were in the works, long BEFORE the 911 World Trade Center attack. Far from a tragedy, 911 was an OPPORTUNITY for the Bush/Cheney White House to proceed with Plans.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 30, 2009)

That last sentence is what brought it all together for me when looking into everything. The events just seemed to work in the previous administrations favor too well, too many people made too much money off the tragedy for it to all just be a huge coincidence...


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jun 30, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Thanks JF .... I will do all I can to keep folks informed about 911 ... knowledge is power and the elite fears a well informed public.
> 
> Check this one out folks ...
> A BURIED 60 Minutes INTERVIEW / INDICTMENT
> The video employs clips from a 2004 60 Minutes Interview with 2001-2003 Secretary of the Treasury, Paul ONeil. ONeil,a Permanent Member of the then formed NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC), was eventually FIRED in 2003, for what he OPPOSED and witnessed in the Early days of the JUST elected 2001 Bush Whitehouse. He was appalled at the Secrecy and Contradictions in the George Bush he thought he knew. It was apparent a new agenda was rollingand he wanted NO part in it. War plans were in the works, long BEFORE the 911 World Trade Center attack. Far from a tragedy, 911 was an OPPORTUNITY for the Bush/Cheney White House to proceed with Plans.


So which is it?

9/11 was an inside job

Or

9/11 was not an inside job but it was used as a reason to go to war in Iraq

Again I offer this:

Bush: I`m an idiot who can barely read or write but I have a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists tried to blow up the buildings once, why don`t we just blow them up and blame it on the terrorists?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President you don`t understand. It`s much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves, plant the bombs, and make it look like exploding planes that brought the buildings down.
That way we involve more people, stand a greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!
Cheney: Of course just toppling the twin towers will never be enough. We will never get a war mandate if we just topple the twin towers, we also need to shoot a missile at the Pentagon, and then obviously we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.
Rumsfeld: Yeah it goes without saying the public outrage won`t be enough without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Cheney: And the Pentagon crash--we have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it was a cruise missile..
Bush: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
Cheney: Because it`s much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane.
Bush: But aren't`t we using two planes on the Twin Towers?
Rumsfeld: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile and say it was a plane because it`s sneakier that way.
Bush: Duh...O.K.
Rumsfeld: The other good thing about saying it was a passenger jet, is that way we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a missing crew and plane.

And then apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a self-serving paean/memoir to her "dead husband", again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

The government cannot even keep a memo from the EPA secret for very long, how in the hell do you think they could keep this a secret for 8 years?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jun 30, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> So which is it?
> 9/11 was an inside job
> Or
> 9/11 was not an inside job but it was used as a reason to go to war in Iraq


It's pretty obvious that was an inside job in order to start illegal wars ... torture ... spy ... use private armies ... commit war crimes ... take away freedoms ... with the backing of the sheeple.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Again I offer this:


Your sarcasm offers nothing. It's obvious they made lots of mistakes but because they control the DOJ and corporate media, they don't have to worry about it ... at least that's what they think. Those mistakes may bite them in the ass.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> The government cannot even keep a memo from the EPA secret for very long, how in the hell do you think they could keep this a secret for 8 years?


They didn't ... if they had we wouldn't be pushing for a real investigation now would we ...how the hell can it be a secret with all the accusations on the net ...explain that one to us ...


----------



## NoDrama (Jun 30, 2009)

Pretty sure Bush can read and write.


----------



## 001 (Jun 30, 2009)

alex jones is a agent... mabey 90% is true... how come he still walks.>>????? trust any one "they" want dead is dead....

check this out
shows Jones lieing and twisting
jones and people like jones are there to guide us with mostly truth,


Bill Cooper EXPOSED! Alex Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsXVO1pBi7U&feature=channel_page

Alex Jones Slams Bill Cooper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKM7k_H9FjM

Alex Jones Interview With William Cooper Pt.1 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da5Z33MsUjY


----------



## 001 (Jun 30, 2009)

p.s reseach the people who got killed and you will see a common theam 

john todd, william cooper, fritz springmyer


----------



## max420thc (Jun 30, 2009)

propaganda should consist of around 90% truth and the rest misdirection . right out of the nazi play book.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 1, 2009)

001 said:


> alex jones is a agent... mabey 90% is true... how come he still walks.>>????? trust any one "they" want dead is dead....
> 
> check this out
> shows Jones lieing and twisting
> jones and people like jones are there to guide us with mostly truth,


Jones has been arrested on several occasions ... and I have a feeling it would be too many for "them" to kill ... Jones isn't the only one exposing 911. That's why they use corporate media to give the clear impression that anyone who doubts the official story is mental.
As far as the Cooper interview ... it would be up to Jones to produce the one he claims Cooper cussed ... until then it will look like he did lie ... why? ... That's the question. Thanks for stoppin by.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 1, 2009)

Check it out folks ... torture is only to obtain a false confession ... 
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/16/accused-911-mastermind-i-make-up-stories/Accused 9.11 mastermind: I make up stories
In potentially another blow to advocates of torture and harsh interrogation, transcripts released yesterday show that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says he made up stories to appease his interrogators.
Mohammed says he told his questioners he didnt know the location of Osama Bin Laden, and was tortured as a result.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
Under torture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said anything he thought would make the torture stop.
*Torture, as we have known from the times of the Catholic Inquisition, is about getting a confession, not getting the truth.*
One has to wonder just how many "sick pieces of work" in this government were getting immense pleasure from seeing the photos, and reading the reports.
Truly moral Americans would have refused to do this.
And why?
Because:
1. The use of torture by the US, for all practical intents and purposes, pulls us out any and all human rights treaties to which the US has ever been a signatory, including the Geneva Accords.
2. The use of torture by the US is completely antithetical to every core American moral value expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3. The use of torture by the US makes us a laughingstock for the rest of the world for our hypocracy. People understand that those values our leadership talks about wanting to "export", democracy, human rights, and human dignity, are values they actually hold in the most despicable contempt.
4. The use of torture by the US against foreign nationals and military gives other countries carte blanche *to do the same to US foreign nationals and military.*
If you have anyone you care about serving in the military, that last one ought to put a shiver up your spine.
*BOTTOM LINE: THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE MASTERMIND FOR 9-11. THEY NEVER DID. THEY HAVE A PATSY TORTURED INTO A CONFESSION AND THAT IS ALL THE US GOVERNMENT HAS EVER HAD!*

_"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell
you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."_ --
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spyring.htmlIsraeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 1, 2009)

We must fight the NWO before they destroy us ... check it ...

Fighting the New World Order: Information Revolution 2009

[youtube]cjsiGLxT9mg [/youtube]
"we the people" are in some serious trouble ...


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 1, 2009)

Thats interesting. So when did the high ranking member of the staff come out and say it was an inside job, and then reiterate that point for 8 years in every interview he did?


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 1, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Thats interesting. So when did the high ranking member of the staff come out and say it was an inside job, and then reiterate that point for 8 years in every interview he did?


 
What is your official stance on 911, Ant?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 2, 2009)

Why are many of them officials and scientist and engineers ... and ... the list goes on ... 

Retired US Strategic Intelligence General Says 911 is a Fraud!

[youtube]TMgGehS8KdE[/youtube]
Just another nutty general ... right ...


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 2, 2009)

Great Find!!


----------



## EzGroW (Jul 3, 2009)

its too bad most people wont see the truth for what it is, the signs of the times are here, quarantine is the front , for mass extermination, all the building blocks have been put into place, now its only a matter of time before they start sacrificing the sheep.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 4, 2009)

EzGroW said:


> its too bad most people wont see the truth for what it is, the signs of the times are here, quarantine is the front , for mass extermination, all the building blocks have been put into place, now its only a matter of time before they start sacrificing the sheep.


I think that's a little extreme. I havn't seen anything about executing American civilians, and that doesn't belong in the 911 thread.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 8, 2009)

For all you ninnies that were shooting off your uninformed mouths about getting explosives into those buildings check out this report ... 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/investigators-easily-smuggled-bomb-material-into-government-buildings.htmlInvestigators Easily Smuggled Bomb Material Into Government Buildings 
A new report by the *Government Accountability Office *inadvertently discredits a claim often made by 9/11 truth debunkers  that bombs could not have been smuggled into the twin towers or Building 7 without being noticed by security.
In the past year,* investigators successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into ten high-security federal buildings*, constructed bombs and walked around the buildings undetected, reports the Washington Post.
The GAO said that Federal Protective Service security at the offices of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the State Department amongst others was easily penetrated by investigators carrying liquid explosives and low-yield detonators.
So if the investigators could do that look how easy it would be to bring in a large amount under the guise of "construction work". So the likely hood of this happening as shown in the report is very probable.


Here's an interesting video ... again for the ninnies that think NWO is a "moonbat" conspiracy theory I hope you will enjoy ...
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1494Proof of the New World Order in under 11 minutes
bush the first has a lot of nerve talking about upholding the law ... what a fucking hypocrite! And notice the warning comes from both sides of the political opinion.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 8, 2009)

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version
People we are so fucked it isn't even funny ... the elite (Bilderberg group PNAC) are planning something big. Obama is nothing more than a puppet. You see how the congress goes out of it's way not to uphold the law or the constitution? ... 911 was part of the plan ... for those of you that need a reason why the elite would do 911 this video will give you a good idea why. They made it quite clear when they killed Kennedy ... the last real president ... do as they are told or they die. Kennedy tried to get rid of the federal reserve and he lost his life because of it. Wallstreet has indeed hijacked Washington in board daylight. It's almost 2 hours long and I'm sure some of you don't have the time, but for those of you that do it's a good watch.


----------



## jrh72582 (Jul 8, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The Obama Deception HQ Full length version
> People we are so fucked it isn't even funny ... the elite (Bilderberg group PNAC) are planning something big. Obama is nothing more than a puppet. You see how the congress goes out of it's way not to uphold the law or the constitution? ... 911 was part of the plan ... for those of you that need a reason why the elite would do 911 this video will give you a good idea why. They made it quite clear when they killed Kennedy ... the last real president ... do as they are told or they die. Kennedy tried to get rid of the federal reserve and he lost his life because of it. Wallstreet has indeed hijacked Washington in board daylight. It's almost 2 hours long and I'm sure some of you don't have the time, but for those of you that do it's a good watch.


So you're connecting Obama with the 9/11 'conspiracy' now? You might want to rephrase your rant. 

And who is the 'they' that killed Kennedy?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 8, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> So you're connecting Obama with the 9/11 'conspiracy' now?


Nooooo .... I'm connecting Obama's handlers to 911



jrh72582 said:


> You might want to rephrase your rant.


You might want to learn to read and comprehend better.



jrh72582 said:


> And who is the 'they' that killed Kennedy?


Ah ... the Bilderberg Group, owners of the Federal Reserve ... you know that private bank that our congress refuses to audit ... PNAC and other corporate groups that are really in control of this country, the same group that is using Obama to sell their NWO agenda ... that ... "they" ...
According to the film (and all the facts presented can be verified so you don't have to take the word of Alex Jones the producer) this break down of the dollar the rise is gas prices, the financial crisis was all carefully orchestrated by the "shadow government" (the groups mentions). "They" want one global government with them in charge ... they will have Obama claim that this is the only way we can end the financial crisis.
I you care about not getting fuck over you need to investigate this issue ... edumacate yourself.
Thanks for tuning in.


----------



## jrh72582 (Jul 8, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Nooooo .... I'm connecting Obama's handlers to 911
> 
> 
> You might want to learn to read and comprehend better.
> ...


I only asked for clarification dude. To be quite honest, I don't where I stand in regards to 9/11. I haven't researched the issue much at all. I do know that Bush really capitalized on the fear, using it as a pretense to take away freedoms. To that, I (or rather Benjamin Franklin) say(s):

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. Amen.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 8, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> I only asked for clarification dude. To be quite honest, I don't where I stand in regards to 9/11. I haven't researched the issue much at all. I do know that Bush really capitalized on the fear, using it as a pretense to take away freedoms. To that, I (or rather Benjamin Franklin) say(s):
> 
> Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. Amen.


 
Exactly.

If the acts of 911 were not orchestrated by the US government, the elected officials used the attack against their own people to enact shit like the Patriot Act, and establish the largest government America has ever seen. Are they all to blame? No, some of them were tricked exactly how the rest of the world was. But there are definitely people who knew what they were doing, usurping power disguised as legitimate legislation designed to protect us. Just as the man said, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - and this is exactly what he meant. 

I'd like to think we still have the power to voice our opinions on the national stage, but it seems we don't have any representatives who give a damn about our voice to begin with...

But then, there's the media. The organization I as a child thought was there to tell us what's happening, at that time not knowing the meaning of political agendas or political bias... Everyone in America gets their information from the mainstream media. The government responsible for the suspicious legislation, via spokespeople and ''journalists'' essentially controls the main stories that get aired on the news. That means the majority of Americans only hear what this already in power administration wants them to hear. A government that resorts to that level of brainwashing makes the biggest contradiction ever claiming to be free. Sure we're free to do what we want, and we're more ''free'' than most people in the world, but we still experience a level of slavery that cycles all the time but never changes. The majority of us are willfully ignorant to the shit that could save the next generations minds and end this goddamn cycle once and for all. There just aren't enough of us to make a dent in the system.

Corrupt politicians control media
Media controls what you see/hear
Corrupt politicians control what you see/hear


----------



## jrh72582 (Jul 8, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If the acts of 911 were not orchestrated by the US government, the elected officials used the attack against their own people to enact shit like the Patriot Act, and establish the largest government America has ever seen. Are they all to blame? No, some of them were tricked exactly how the rest of the world was. But there are definitely people who knew what they were doing, usurping power disguised as legitimate legislation designed to protect us. Just as the man said, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - and this is exactly what he meant.
> 
> ...


_Stands up and erupts into applause_..............


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 9, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> How many theories have I expounded on here? Just the same one, you are just trying to make a comeback by trying so very hard to discredit me by coming up with lies , lies and more lies. Anyone who is following this thread has already thrown anything you say out the window, as seen by the lack of any support on your end of things. If anyone has tried to come up with multiple harebrained theories to try and prove impossibilities is you.
> 
> You still haven't addressed the "Molten Aluminum" theory of yours I already disproved, got no snappy comebacks for that one eh? I will take your silence on all the other things as your admission of defeat.
> 
> Thanks for Playing!



I have very little time for internet play. Other threads have been more entertaining of late. When I have lost an argument I will concede it. Until such time as I voice my defeat, do not celebrate it. 

What molten aluminum "theory" did you disprove? Oh... yes... lol... the color didn't look right to you, before the building didn't fall like you expected.

At some point we really are going to have to go over the definitions of "facts", "evidence", "proof", and "theory". 

PROPOSING subjective evidence to support a theory is not "proof" "disproof" or "fact", and I am sick of making the distinction for you.







Please note in the above photo that the color of that pesky metal turns from yellow at the point of origin, to silver as cooled by the air at the bottom.

Please note this EVIDENCE supporting my BELIEF that this is molten aluminum.











Note that the stream of molten aluminum is not silver, but yellow and red... because of the temperature of that particular molten aluminum. Most experienced pourers let it cool a bit before pouring. 







This is a plant recycling aluminum. See all those other colors? Some of that is other stuff (slag) melted with the aluminum. I expect WTC was not exactly a lab environment for melting aluminum.







More yellow from pure aluminum







An aluminum foundry. Pretty huh?


I know right... you are all confused... cause your sites show you this







Aluminum glows when it is hotter. That is all... but thanks ever so much for playing.


So now... let us be clear. I have not "disproven" your theory. I have demonstrated that mine is equally valid. Please stop using the words if you do not understand their meaning.

Evidence is subject to interpretation and therefore debatable. While it CAN prove a thing, it should not be implied that its interpretation IS proof of a thing.

*Subjective interpretation is NOT evidence.*

Proof, is CONCLUSIVE evidence of the truth or existence of a thing.

*Evidence that coincides with your expectation of it, is NOT proof.*

Facts are known pieces of information that are indisputable. 

*Beliefs are NOT facts.* Not even if they are common beliefs.


Now... please stop trying to embolden your position by misusing terms.





Btw. What is the minimum amount of people required for your conspiracy?

Minimum.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 9, 2009)

Surprisingly enough you can get aluminum to glow red hot, I was wrong, but the temp needed to make it glow is right around 4500F(FACT). Now you aren't saying that the temps are at 4500F are you? because that would have easily melted the steel structure WAY before the aluminum would have glowed, and so we would have seen some type of structural damage before hand. As far as your pictures go, you will notice that all of the ones glowing are actually IN the FURNACE or in a vessel that is highly heated, its the furnace that glows, not your aluminum there buddy. The furnace is making the Aluminum glow, not the other way around. 1220 f (fact) is the melting point of aluminum, that pic showing the building MUST be iron/steel. Just because the red hot aluminum can keep its red color for 6 inches of pour as shown in your second picture only proves that it cools off so fast that there is no way it could sustain the kind of heat to make it glow while falling through the air. notice its still glowing red hot after falling several stories. Its not aluminum. Molten Iron/steel can do that, but not aluminum.

FWIW your pics are all over http://8real.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=phony&action=display&thread=21 and are pretty much debunked as having any validity. You can believe all you want that it is Aluminum, but the evidence shows otherwise. You can also believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, but that still doesn't make them real.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 9, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> I only asked for clarification dude.


Sorry mate ... I thought I was clear.



jrh72582 said:


> To be quite honest, I don't where I stand in regards to 9/11. I haven't researched the issue much at all.


If you care about our country you owe it to her to investigate not only this, but the members of the Bilderberg group the Carlyle group, PNAC ... they believe they have a God given right to control our lives and they plan to create a one world government with them in complete control. Did you know that members of the Federal Reserve are above the law?



jrh72582 said:


> I do know that Bush really capitalized on the fear, using it as a pretense to take away freedoms. To that, I (or rather Benjamin Franklin) say(s):
> 
> Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. Amen.


You are absolutely right about bush and obama is doing the same thing only expanding ... they plan to use obama to sell the NWO to the people ... we must shot out loud ... NO to global government.
It's amazing how many people on this fourm are willing to give up their liberty for security ... I'll take my chances with the so called terrorists than give MY freedom away. The sheeple may have no problem with it ... but I have a very big problem with it and I won't stand for it.




what... huh? said:


> So now... let us be clear. I have not "disproven" your theory. I have demonstrated that mine is equally valid. Please stop using the words if you do not understand their meaning.
> 
> Evidence is subject to interpretation and therefore debatable. While it CAN prove a thing, it should not be implied that its interpretation IS proof of a thing.
> 
> ...


Notice folks at home how this guy like to play on words to try to win a no win argument? There is NOTHING subjective to the evidence of unreacted thermite at the site ... it's not a "subjective interpretation" with several witnesses stating they heard explosions before the buildings fell. It's not "subjective interpretation" to state the only way those building could have came down the way they did if for all the major point to fail at the same time which is impossible without some serious help. Instead of admitting he is wrong he'd rather continue this charade that he's proven the government story is true ... most with half a brain see that the evidence has been presented in this thread time and time again.
Also notice he doesn't provide the link source to his pictures ... but NO has ... that's the difference between us so called "truthers" and the lame ... we back our statements with links to the source.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 9, 2009)

Wowie ... looks like the writers of "the X-Files" predicted a false flag operation by the government ... check it out ...
911 Conspiracy predicted in X-Files
[youtube]rIZ205ccX8M&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
You heard what he said ... "don't be so damn naive". Life is truer than fiction!


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 9, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Surprisingly enough you can get aluminum to glow red hot, I was wrong, but the temp needed to make it glow is right around 4500F(FACT).


Props on intellectual honesty. I will stop being snide and shitty to you now. The temp to make it glow, however is not 4500F, and it is not a fact. 

See the guys in the suits pouring the aluminum block? They are from popular mechanics, and the temperature is 1500c.

It is clearly a glowing stream. 

Here. All PURE metals glow at the same temperatures regardless of their melting points. Again, as stated, nothing pure involved in that environment.
*The first chart is more recent and I am unsure of the source... the second is textbook, but very old (1929). I will try and find a better source when I have more time.













NoDrama said:


> Now you aren't saying that the temps are at 4500F are you? because that would have easily melted the steel structure WAY before the aluminum would have glowed, and so we would have seen some type of structural damage before hand.


That would be silly now wouldn't it? No. I am not suggesting that.



NoDrama said:


> As far as your pictures go, you will notice that all of the ones glowing are actually IN the FURNACE or in a vessel that is highly heated, its the furnace that glows, not your aluminum there buddy.


Aluminum, glass, copper wiring... etc. 



NoDrama said:


> The furnace is making the Aluminum glow, not the other way around. 1220 f (fact) is the melting point of aluminum, that pic showing the building MUST be iron/steel. Just because the red hot aluminum can keep its red color for 6 inches of pour as shown in your second picture only proves that it cools off so fast that there is no way it could sustain the kind of heat to make it glow while falling through the air. notice its still glowing red hot after falling several stories. Its not aluminum. Molten Iron/steel can do that, but not aluminum.


I do not understand your conclusion. It seems as if you believe that because pourers do not want to splash themselves with molten aluminum, that the aluminum can only travel that distance before cooling? Do any of them look... less glowing at the bottom of the stream than the top? 



NoDrama said:


> FWIW your pics are all over http://8real.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=phony&action=display&thread=21 and are pretty much debunked as having any validity. You can believe all you want that it is Aluminum, but the evidence shows otherwise. You can also believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, but that still doesn't make them real.


No... the pictures I didn't post have been called into question. I was very careful. I am aware that the furnace also contributes to the color... because all pure metals glow the same color at the same temperatures.







Pure aluminum in a tungsten boat. 1000C.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 9, 2009)

heh, well I don't know about all metals glowing at the same temperature, i will have to do some research on that one. Anyway, the other point I was going to make before i had to run off to work, was that Aluminum melts(1220f) at a much lower temperature than steel/iron(2600-2700F) right? No One disputes that. But here is the thing, if the aluminum melted, wouldn't it have all spilled out BEFORE it got hot enough to glow white/yellow hot?? In other words, the aluminum didn't melt, then stick around to get super glowing hot and THEN DECIDE to flow out of the building did it?

Another thing about your graph you show for illustrating the temperatures of metal and their color when they reach that temp. If aluminum melts at 1220 F, then why is it not a cherry red like your chart suggests that it should be, your very last pic definitely shows MOLTEN ALUMINUM that is not glowing cherry red, in fact its as silvery colored as the metal is when cooled. Your chart and your pics prove one or the other as wrong.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 9, 2009)

Emissivity.


.12 for pure aluminum.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 9, 2009)

Some terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, the pentagon, and some courageous civilians foiled a fourth and the plane crashed in PA.

I then believe the towers fell,due to fire, the impact, and the massive forces involved, and that they are not due to demolition or that the dumb ass Bush did it.

The only conspiracy I personally believe involved the terrorist conspiring to blow up the towers.

It's pretty simple, eh? 

I'm a fan of Occam's Razor.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 9, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Emissivity.
> 
> 
> .12 for pure aluminum.


Aircraft grade aluminum IS .09. Steel is .20 to .32.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 9, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Some terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, the pentagon, and some courageous civilians foiled a fourth and the plane crashed in PA.
> 
> I then believe the towers fell,due to fire, the impact, and the massive forces involved, and that they are not due to demolition or that the dumb ass Bush did it.
> 
> ...


Got any evidence other than opinion or Occam's Razor?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 9, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Some terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, the pentagon, and some courageous civilians foiled a fourth and the plane crashed in PA.


That's merely what the government told us and they have provide no evidence to back their theory.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I then believe the towers fell,due to fire, the impact, and the massive forces involved, and that they are not due to demolition


The evidence clearly indicates those building were demo ... and there is no proof what so ever that those buildings came down due to fire ... none. You seem to be one of those people that accepts what ever the government or corporate media tells you no matter how ridiculous the info.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> or that the dumb ass Bush did it.


No one is claiming he did it on his own. He was nothing more than the puppet ... like obama is now.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> The only conspiracy I personally believe involved the terrorist conspiring to blow up the towers.


Where is your evidence of this? Link? Source?



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> It's pretty simple, eh?


Yeah if you look at the facts, and the evidence ... it is simple ... but not in your case.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I'm a fan of Occam's Razor.


And I'm a fan of the truth biting people in the ass.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 9, 2009)

Check out this new video folks ... it blows wh and the others bullshit clean out of the water.
9/11 FLIR Infrared Camera proves NIST and 9/11 Commission Lies
[youtube]yllhB2HYIP0[/youtube]
This video is less than 10 min. The infrared photo were given to the the bogus 911 commission but they were never mention or used ... I wonder why?
There was this woman who was working for a Jersey Infrared Consultant and she happen to have one of those infrared camera with her on 911 and she use it to take two pictures of the WTC before they collapsed. It's showed the jet fuel fire was not nearly hot enough to melt or cause structural damage to the steel. Plus NIST confirmed the jet fuel burn off in 10 minutes after impact. The picture shows that the fire cooled down 15 minutes after impact.
They use the picture that was posted here of the woman standing in the opening, blowing another one of hw hair brain theroies.
This is a scientist presenting this video and presents science and facts not "subjective interpations" as hw like to call it when he can't dispute hard facts.
The infrared picture proves that NIST was lying about the temps of the fire. He states they can scientifically prove that the fires were not hot enough to bring down those towers.
The video talks about other towers that burned but did not fall, I believe NO posted picture of them as well. 
He shows a lot of construction pictures like the ones we posted to show just how strong the structure really was.
Do you realize the odds of those three towers falling in the same day? You'd have a far better chance at winning the lottery.
He shows his calulations so all the scientist here can check it out. 
The video talks about a Kevin Ryan with Underwriters Laboratory exposed NIST and debunked their pancake theory ... and he was fire for it ... I wonder why? Well worth the 10 minutes. Really puts more egg on the faces of the government believers. NO and the rest of you ... tell me what you think of this video.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 9, 2009)

At 6:59 you can see a pic of all those big steel beams all nicely cut off at a slight angle. I count 7 in that one picture. Hardly believable that that just "Happened". Great Find Grow!!


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 9, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> At 6:59 you can see a pic of all those big steel beams all nicely cut off at a slight angle. I count 7 in that one picture. Hardly believable that that just "Happened". Great Find Grow!!


 
I've heard people refute this with ''the cleanup crew cut those beams to make the steel more manageable after the collapse" - which doesn't sound unreasonable to me.. 

I'm not sure if there's any way to determine if that's true or not, I guess the only way would be to find the official time that photo was taken, then figure out how long after the collapse took place it was shot... I don't know if that's possible at this point though...


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 9, 2009)

I heard it was Jedi Knight Light Saber training day.


----------



## huffy420 (Jul 9, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I've heard people refute this with ''the cleanup crew cut those beams to make the steel more manageable after the collapse" - which doesn't sound unreasonable to me..
> 
> I'm not sure if there's any way to determine if that's true or not, I guess the only way would be to find the official time that photo was taken, then figure out how long after the collapse took place it was shot... I don't know if that's possible at this point though...



If they cut those for "clean up" purposes, then what would be the point in cutting the coloumn at 45 degreds??? That is unless your trying to get a colomn to shift in a desired direction. 

Im just sayin, if ur cleaning up a disaster area why take the time to make such an accurate cut on steel that has been destroyed? Yet alone being taken to me smelted..


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 9, 2009)

I heard it was the fucking cleanup crew.







Anyone care to give me a "great find"?

Nahhh...




NoDrama said:


> Aircraft grade aluminum IS .09. Steel is .20 to .32.


and oxidized steel is .44. Aluminum oxide is .31. Glass is around .12 as memory serves.

Any idea what these things mean?


----------



## HeftyJo (Jul 9, 2009)

I was just doing a search for something completely unrelated and found this thread. I can't believe this is still being updated as of today. Just get a grip people.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 9, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> If they cut those for "clean up" purposes, then what would be the point in cutting the coloumn at 45 degreds??? That is unless your trying to get a colomn to shift in a desired direction.
> 
> Im just sayin, if ur cleaning up a disaster area why take the time to make such an accurate cut on steel that has been destroyed? Yet alone being taken to me smelted..



Because they are huge assed beams and columns which have to fall a certain way.


Does that sound at all vaguely familiar?






Remember?


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 9, 2009)

HeftyJo said:


> I was just doing a search for something completely unrelated and found this thread. I can't believe this is still being updated as of today. Just get a grip people.



So glad to see you just don't care enough either way to bother.

Yes. We are just silly.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

The clean up crew didn't have to cut jack shit. It was already all cut into 10 foot lengths for them when they got there. Seriously though look at all the smoldering piles around them, they haven't started clean up yet. You would remove all the dangerous smoldering things before you would have someone stand on top of it while cutting tons of beams down. Common sense.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

HeftyJo said:


> I was just doing a search for something completely unrelated and found this thread. I can't believe this is still being updated as of today. Just get a grip people.


 Thousands of people died, our liberties were taken away because of it, Wars were started using it as a springboard to attack. Yep no sense in debating this.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

Ok... these would be one of those "facts", because of the "conclusive evidence".








It is no longer debatable whether or not cleanup cut any beams.


This is yet another one of those "Thank God" photos, where if someone on the crew hadn't happened to snap the photo (as the area was restricted access), I would spend months arguing how, why, and when they cut beams. Log that in your head.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> The clean up crew didn't have to cut jack shit. It was already all cut into 10 foot lengths for them when they got there. Seriously though look at all the smoldering piles around them, they haven't started clean up yet. You would remove all the dangerous smoldering things before you would have someone stand on top of it while cutting tons of beams down. Common sense.



They were well into cleanup. The sources for all of these images are the same.







October. Look like they are doing cleanup?








Here we are mid December.







Please tell me when you think this was taken, and why.


----------



## huffy420 (Jul 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> It is no longer debatable whether or not cleanup cut any beams.



I agree, I never said they didn't cut any beams. IDK why your trying to prove the clean up crew cut beams. Its foolish to think that they didnt have torches out there. Here is what I dont get... There is no justifiable reason to make a 45 degree cut on a beam thats being scrapped anyway. Why not make a square 90 cut and be done with it?



NoDrama said:


> The clean up crew didn't have to cut jack shit. It was already all cut into 10 foot lengths for them when they got there. Seriously though look at all the smoldering piles around them, they haven't started clean up yet. You would remove all the dangerous smoldering things before you would have someone stand on top of it while cutting tons of beams down. Common sense.


There were reports of crew workers whose boots would literally melt from the intense heat of the melted steel deep within the pile of rubble, which burned for months and spewed out like lava. Just more Thermite proof for me! Anyone with any real knowledge would know that a normal ass fire buried under several stories of rubble would not have sufficient oxygen to burn for months. Let alone be able to reach temps of melting steel....
http://911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> I agree, I never said they didn't cut any beams. IDK why your trying to prove the clean up crew cut beams. Its foolish to think that they didnt have torches out there.


Top of the page.


NoDrama said:


> The clean up crew didn't have to cut jack shit. It was already all cut into 10 foot lengths for them when they got there. Seriously though look at all the smoldering piles around them, they haven't started clean up yet. You would remove all the dangerous smoldering things before you would have someone stand on top of it while cutting tons of beams down. Common sense.





huffy420 said:


> Here is what I dont get... There is no justifiable reason to make a 45 degree cut on a beam thats being scrapped anyway. Why not make a square 90 cut and be done with it?


Firstly, I have posted a picture twice now, showing them being cut on angle during cleanup. This is not debatable. Your question why is debatable... easily.

Because they have to fall in a specific direction. Ever done any tree work? You don't want to be trying to figure out what direction to run in when it falls. There are ground crews, and they have to also be clear of the area when taking down the last of the huge remnants. These were large structures. People really just fail to understand the scale of this.



huffy420 said:


> There were reports of crew workers whose boots would literally melt from the intense heat of the melted steel deep within the pile of rubble, which burned for months and spewed out like lava. Just more Thermite proof for me! Anyone with any real knowledge would know that a normal ass fire buried under several stories of rubble would not have sufficient oxygen to burn for months. Let alone be able to reach temps of melting steel....
> http://911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html



A thermite reaction lasts in the seconds. 







Do you have the faintest idea what would happen to your head if you put it above a thermite reaction? Do you have any idea what the vapors alone would do... much less the unfathomable heat.

This just all seems so silly to me. I don't mean to be insulting, because some of you are clever people... but this is just... ridiculous. You people do not understand the forces at work here. Few do. I don't. I know, at least, that it is largely beyond me... and I am a fairly clever guy.

That is why I fall time and time again to the notion of dogma. So many people WANT to believe this so badly, that no matter how many topics I address, no matter how many things I debunk... they are wired to believe this. They are so spiteful of their fantastic country and lives that they will ALWAYS believe this.

Your life, is fucking fantastic. Whatever bullshit you think sucks... there are not tribes of warlords driving around cutting off you and your families arms with machetes. 

How you can hate your country so much is beyond me.

Again I ask Drama. How many minimum were involved. You said between 1 and 1 trillion or some such nonsense.

It would take more than one, and I didn't ask for a total.

I told you it would take some thought.

How many minimum would be REQUIRED, MINIMUM. That IS a number you can come up with.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I heard it was the fucking cleanup crew.
> Anyone care to give me a "great find"?
> Nahhh...


Ah ... what for? ... you show a picture of something we already knew and never denied?



HeftyJo said:


> I was just doing a search for something completely unrelated and found this thread. I can't believe this is still being updated as of today. Just get a grip people.


No you get a grip. People died and are still dying because of this. Crimes are being committed TODAY because of this. The murderers have not been brought to justice. People what a REAL investigation ... do you mind? No you get a grip.kiss-ass



what... huh? said:


> Because they are huge assed beams and columns which have to fall a certain way.
> Does that sound at all vaguely familiar?
> Remember?


Once again you are blowing it out your ass. I work construction and those beam don't have to fall a certain way ... they don't do it as stupid as that. The beam is held in place by a crane or excavator until it is straight cut, then PLACE where they want it ... they don't play the let it fall shit ... not something as big as those beams ... so another one of your bullshit theory blown.




what... huh? said:


> Ok... these would be one of those "facts", because of the "conclusive evidence".
> It is no longer debatable whether or not cleanup cut any beams.


Not disputing that ... only that they made 45 degree cuts ... something they would not do.




what... huh? said:


> This is yet another one of those "Thank God" photos, where if someone on the crew hadn't happened to snap the photo (as the area was restricted access), I would spend months arguing how, why, and when they cut beams. Log that in your head.


Oh no you wouldn't have ... because I blew that bullshit in one minute.



what... huh? said:


> They were well into cleanup. The sources for all of these images are the same.


Well if they are all the same then you won't have any problem providing us with the link will you?



what... huh? said:


> Firstly, I have posted a picture twice now, showing them being cut on angle during cleanup. This is not debatable. Your question why is debatable... easily.


Absolute and total bullshit ...what? ... you don't think we can look at a picture? Not one shows any worker cutting at a 45 degree angle ... not one ... point it out ... we know your delusional mind see things far different so you will have to point that picture out. The only angle cuts are the ones with the firemen standing in front ... blowing it out your ass again.



what... huh? said:


> Because they have to fall in a specific direction.


Ah no ... they don't ... you obviously know nothing about construction.


what... huh? said:


> Ever done any tree work?


Ever done any construction work dealing with skyscrapers? Didn't think so.



what... huh? said:


> There are ground crews, and they have to also be clear of the area when taking down the last of the huge remnants.


So tell us bright boy ... how are they going to cut these angle and be clear at the same time? Explain it to us.



what... huh? said:


> These were large structures. People really just fail to understand the scale of this.


Like you?



what... huh? said:


> A thermite reaction lasts in the seconds.


Says the thermite expert. 



what... huh? said:


> Do you have the faintest idea what would happen to your head if you put it above a thermite reaction?


Well it's quite clear you certainly don't know.



what... huh? said:


> Do you have any idea what the vapors alone would do... much less the unfathomable heat.


The fact that the firemen are all around looking at the result of thermite proves they won't "vaporize".



what... huh? said:


> This just all seems so silly to me. I don't mean to be insulting, because some of you are clever people... but this is just... ridiculous. You people do not understand the forces at work here. Few do. I don't. I know, at least, that it is largely beyond me... and I am a fairly clever guy.


You and a couple of others are the ones that don't understand ... not us. Deal with it.



what... huh? said:


> That is why I fall time and time again to the notion of dogma. So many people WANT to believe this so badly


Bullshit ... it not that we WANT to believe ... it that we can't ignore the evidence like you can ... it's as simple as that. It is you that DON'T WANT to believe because you are afraid to face the truth. That's your problem, not ours.



what... huh? said:


> That no matter how many topics I address, no matter how many things I debunk...


Bwaa ha ha ha .... how many things you've debunk .... bwaa ha ha ha ... now that's too funny. 



what... huh? said:


> they are wired to believe this. They are so spiteful of their fantastic country and lives that they will ALWAYS believe this.


You will ALWAYS have you head in a hole in the ground ... you really want to believe the government lies no matter how ridiculous ... knock yourself out ... it only make you look like a sheep, but that is your right ... just don't push your sheeple ways on us ... we are not going to go along with it. 911 was an inside job. Until a REAL investigation takes place the government and you will have to deal with us "nut job" "truthers". Too bad ... so sad.



what... huh? said:


> Your life, is fucking fantastic. Whatever bullshit you think sucks... there are not tribes of warlords driving around cutting off you and your families arms with machetes.


Our lives may be "fucking fantastic" but our country is in distress and it up to we the people to come to her defense. She is being assaulted by war criminals and we have to stop them. If you can't handle that ... fine ... but don't get in our way ... we are going to fight for a real investigation whether you or the government likes it or not.



what... huh? said:


> How you can hate your country so much is beyond me.


We love our country ... that's why we fight to have these war criminal brought to justice ... and I can't comprehend why you would stand by and allow your country to be assaulted by war criminals ... you should be ashamed to call yourself an american. If you are one.



what... huh? said:


> Again I ask Drama. How many minimum were involved. You said between 1 and 1 trillion or some such nonsense.


And I'm going to TELL you again ... we won't know that for sure until we have a real investigation ... now will we ... 




what... huh? said:


> How many minimum would be REQUIRED, MINIMUM. That IS a number you can come up with.


Once again trying to side step the real issue. Won't work ... even though you keep trying ... it still won't work. You've been OWNED once again. All too easy.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

Grow... I don't read your posts. I haven't in some 50 pages. You have probably worked yourself into a frenzy "winning" arguments against me that I am not having with you. I told you already, if you want me to address something, you will have to wait for drama to read it and relay it. You are a lunatic, and I don't waste my time with lunatics. I will not be reading your reply to this either. 


They aren't out to get you... you really DO need to take your meds. You will be a lot happier.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

What..huh. You said that a thermite reaction lasts seconds? You way way off on that one there buddy, I have had actual experience with the stuff, and it goes for quite a while, hell even a thermite grenade burns for at least 5 minutes, more than enough time to burn through a tank, from all the way from the top armor, through the whole engine block and out the bottom, I timed it, took about 3-4 minutes depending on where it was placed. You don't have ANY experience with thermite do you? None at all right? The reaction lasts for quite a while depending on how much material you have to fuel it, a 1 gallon container could go for over 20 minutes. Its not like gun powder or anything, its no explosive and does not burn up quickly.

You think we hate our country..THAT IS WRONG AS COULD BE. If I didn't love my country I really wouldn't care if we were killing people by the thousands with impunity, the fact is i LOVE my country more than most, thats the whole reason why this charade must end. You can call me names I don't care, call my theories/Arguments BS all you want, but don't you ever call my love of country into question ever again!! I served my country for 8 years through Desert Storm and Somalia, I was shot at, had scuds land near us. Slept many nights in the mud and dirt for years I did this without want or complaint! I helped rescue thousands of People in the Philippines from Mt Pinatubo when it blew. I spent MANY MANY long cold nights vigilantly watching for the enemy. How dare you call my love for country into question!! What service have YOU done for your country???

I will not speculate how many people it would take to have this conspiracy, suffice to say people do not have to know it is a conspiracy to be a part of it.

FWIW I do enjoy debating with you and I don't take most of it personal, there are no hard feelings.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 10, 2009)

Maybe you don't understand his razor... When all evidence is presented, the simplest answer is the right one.

So you would think that after all this time someone would come forward and say:

"Hey, you know what's weird? Like a week before the trade centers dropped, my company had us in there tearing off fireproofing all over both towers, exposing the beams. Then some guys came in and attached this stuff to it. Couldn't quite figure out what it was, but there was like 300,000 pounds of it."

I don't have evidence, but the evidence that has been provided has a way simpler explanation than "thousands of people were in on a great conspiracy to start a war for oil!"

Here's a vid of 1000 pounds of thermite burning. It went pretty quick, but the car burned forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> What..huh. You said that a thermite reaction lasts seconds? You way way off on that one there buddy, I have had actual experience with the stuff, and it goes for quite a while, hell even a thermite grenade burns for at least 5 minutes, more than enough time to burn through a tank, from all the way from the top armor, through the whole engine block and out the bottom, I timed it, took about 3-4 minutes depending on where it was placed.


I was under the impression that they used buffering agents to slow the reaction, and other compounds to increase the heat... Which have no application in demolition. You want precision timing... at least as far as I can see. Please correct me if I am wrong.



NoDrama said:


> You don't have ANY experience with thermite do you? None at all right? The reaction lasts for quite a while depending on how much material you have to fuel it, a 1 gallon container could go for over 20 minutes. Its not like gun powder or anything, its no explosive and does not burn up quickly.


I have only experienced watching thermite reactions on the internet. It is easy enough to make, and I do enjoy such... but have not yet personally. I stated that a long time ago. I have watched dozens, however, and they ALL lasted in the seconds. It is certainly much slower than other ordinances... which is why they don't use it in demo.



NoDrama said:


> You think we hate our country..THAT IS WRONG AS COULD BE. If I didn't love my country I really wouldn't care if we were killing people by the thousands with impunity, the fact is i LOVE my country more than most, thats the whole reason why this charade must end. You can call me names I don't care, call my theories/Arguments BS all you want, but don't you ever call my love of country into question ever again!!


You hate your government, which we elect to represent us, and govern us, so much that you are committed to a belief. I was asserting that you hate your country because of your vitriol for its government, and people (the majority of your countrymen) who are "blind" to what you see *is* the country. You love "your" country, which exists in concept only. The country you love doesn't exist. I don't know if it ever really did. That was my take anyway. 

You seem to hate the country you live in. 



NoDrama said:


> I served my country for 8 years through Desert Storm and Somalia, I was shot at, had scuds land near us. Slept many nights in the mud and dirt for years I did this without want or complaint! I helped rescue thousands of People in the Philippines from Mt Pinatubo when it blew. I spent MANY MANY long cold nights vigilantly watching for the enemy. How dare you call my love for country into question!! What service have YOU done for your country???


I thank you for your service. I appreciate it daily. I praise you. I defend your actions and honor, for defending my ass... and my families. I vote with you in mind. That is what I do for my country. I am more useful behind a monitor than a scope to be sure, but where my profession meets what I do for my country is difficult to say. You need only understand that my decisions are all based in my loyalty to it, to you, and to my family. I am here, arguing with you... still... motivated only by love of country. 

The one I actually live in.




NoDrama said:


> I will not speculate how many people it would take to have this conspiracy, suffice to say people do not have to know it is a conspiracy to be a part of it.


You do nothing but speculate. That is ALL you have done, and all you can do under the circumstances. You have been speculating for 80 pages and God knows how many years, and NOW you refuse to speculate? Does that strike you as odd at all to read?

You will not even explore the question honestly because the answer threatens your dogma. Never fear questions. It betrays something about you.



Speculate.

Indulge me. Note the number of people by position. (ie
Whitehouse - 4
CIA - 3
ATC - 1)

Minimums.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Maybe you don't understand his razor... When all evidence is presented, the simplest answer is the right one.
> 
> 
> Here's a vid of 1000 pounds of thermite burning. It went pretty quick, but the car burned forever.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ


That's not what it means, it means the simplest explanation is most likely the right one, not ALWAYS.

Ahh the magic of video editing, if you look at the shadows cast by the crane, a couple of hours have elapsed, also they did not show the bottom of the vehicle, you would still see thermite reacting there, once it melts through the vehicle it goes where gravity makes it go. It does not sit on top in the bags, it melts into a liquid and melts through everything until it sits on the earth and smolders.

You also have NO experience with thermite do you?


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 10, 2009)

WH, do you think people could be a part of this conspiracy without having any knowledge of it at all? Like, do you think a lot of them could have just thought they were following orders from the top like any other day before?

That's one thing I don't think you've considered... A lot of these people who helped make the events happen were completely unaware of what they were doing, and it was simply business as usual.


Think of it like this;

The CEO of a company is about to be replaced, he's pissed, he thinks he's earned a lot more than the severance package they gave him, so he decides to hire his buddy to come and rob the building before he leaves... The CEO tells all employees and guards on floors 10-15 to stay clear, they're going to be doing some construction or renovation on that area and it should be quiet anyway, no need for security... 

Next day the place is dry as a bone, every dollar is gone. 

Are the employees and security guards to blame? Did they have anything to do with anything, or were they simply doing their job, same as always, as usual?

See what I mean, they had no idea what was happening... they were just following the boss' orders...

Think about it.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You will not even explore the question honestly because the answer threatens your dogma. Never fear questions. It betrays something about you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


umm no, the reason i don't want to try and figure it out is because i am half way through my harvest today and don't have the time to devote to figuring out how many minimum it would take. When you become a mind reader let me know so I can take you to Vegas with me.

You extol my virtues, yet you still say I hate my country, LOL you don't know anything about me or the way I feel. You don't suppose I spent 8 years in the Marines just so I could have a good skill set relegated to killing people do you? 

I actually think many many people believe or at least unknowingly know ( If that makes sense) that 911 was BS the way it all went down. They may not number 300 million, but it sure as hell isn't a small number. The white sheep always outnumber the independent thinking black sheep.

In other countries many foreigners also believe it was BS, it only takes common sense to see it. Alas that is a super power now a days.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Grow... I don't read your posts.


Oh no? Then why this post? I don't need you to read my post. I'm merely making sure that none of your stupid and ridiculous statement don't go unchecked. 



what... huh? said:


> I haven't in some 50 pages.


You just love making shit up that can easily be disproved can't you? You can't seem to help yourself.



what... huh? said:


> You have probably worked yourself into a frenzy "winning" arguments against me that I am not having with you.


You mean those statements you call arguments that I blew out of the water? I really don't care if you respond or not ... it doesn't matter. The only thing that does matter is you not getting away with  ing any bullshit. I can understand why you won't respond ... because you will continue to lose and made to look ridiculous. It's very easy to do too ... like that bullshit about falling a certain way ... that was rich! ha ha ha!



what... huh? said:


> I told you already, if you want me to address something,


And I'm tellin' ya again I don't care if you address anything ... my mission is to keep the record straight ... something you are incapable of doing.



what... huh? said:


> you will have to wait for drama to read it and relay it.


I don't have to wait for anything to read or address your bogus comments.



what... huh? said:


> You are a lunatic,


Better to be a "lunatic" that can see the obvious truth, than a "love my government no matter what" lemming ... I wear the badge proudly.



what... huh? said:


> and I don't waste my time with lunatics. I will not be reading your reply to this either.


I never wasted your time ... you wasted my and the others posting sense in this thread ... it is very wise to pretend you don't read my post ... it keeps you thinking you haven't been exposed as a person with their head in the sand ... but you have been exposed ... many ... many ... many times. And it FUN too! 




what... huh? said:


> They aren't out to get you...


Nor are there "terrorists" out there after you, and the government isn't protecting you from "them"



what... huh? said:


> you really DO need to take your meds. You will be a lot happier.


What makes you think I'm not happy? It's a joy OWNING you isn't it! Perhaps if you'd follow your own advise you would be a lot happier.
Next Victim!


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 10, 2009)

I just stated that it burned pretty quick, that length of time versus months.. well that is pretty quick. 

They have used thermite a lot. Need more? 

I can show you tons of actual footage of thermite burning relatively quickly.

It's cool though, you are going to believe what you wish. 

I can't stop that. 

I can put you in the same category as the no moon landing people though(in my mind).

Do we have a thread on that? Maybe I should start one lol.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

I would like to see the "Tons" of footage, please indulge me.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 10, 2009)

Ah yes ... another video with that Danish scientist that found evidence of thermite and can prove those towers were demo ... he is on London TV ... obviously there is nothing but crickets from corporate media. They certain don't want these stories to hit the airways.
Just more proof of the obvious.

Nano-thermite took down the WTC?
[youtube]4RNyaoYR3y0[/youtube]
So this scientist must be another one of those "lunatics" wh is babbling about ... bwaa ha ha ha... check it out folks scientific prove the WTC were demo.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> WH, do you think people could be a part of this conspiracy without having any knowledge of it at all? Like, do you think a lot of them could have just thought they were following orders from the top like any other day before?
> 
> That's one thing I don't think you've considered... A lot of these people who helped make the events happen were completely unaware of what they were doing, and it was simply business as usual.
> 
> ...



Of course I get it. Under conspiracy theory I am a part of the people unknowingly complicit by foolishly dedicating myself to the rationalization for war against a non-existent enemy.

What I don't get is how you can think the number of people knowingly responsible could do so.

ND, when you were a soldier... would you have been complicit in this? Would any soldier you knew?

How do you figure out who to tap? Do you kill all the ones who wont comply with those orders? 

Was the AF pilot who "was on stand down" because he opted to fly a training exercise rather than be on ready alert? Which guy from your unit would you accuse of being in on it? Because you are accusing someone in SOMEONES unit. Several someones. This large requires lots of military.

It requires clerks who shipped the tons and tons of explosives on palates. It requires demo experts. It requires Corps of Engineers. NORAD handlers... and on and on. That is why you wont. 

I will make it easier.

How many MINIMUM of your fellow service men had to be in on it?

You cannot, simply cannot, keep something of this scale quiet amongst men sworn to protect... us.



side note... whatcha growin? LOL.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 10, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I can put you in the same category as the no moon landing people though(in my mind).


Yeah in your mind ... and we have a pretty good idea what kind of mind that is.



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Do we have a thread on that? Maybe I should start one lol.


Yeah why don't you? We can make you look ridiculous in that one too.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Of course I get it. Under conspiracy theory I am a part of the people unknowingly complicit by foolishly dedicating myself to the rationalization for war against a non-existent enemy.
> 
> What I don't get is how you can think the number of people knowingly responsible could do so.
> 
> ...



First off you never call someone who was in the Marines a soldier, you were never part of the military so you aren't in the know so I can;'t hold it against you,but now you know. Marines are very disciplined, they follow orders blindly for the most part, they do not normally question motives until they have experience and rank. In the Military there is a chain of command that is followed, if a pilot was told to stand down, there is no argument, orders must be followed or people die. No One is "in on it" they all are complicit but just don't know what is going on nor do they have any clue that they are the ones perpetrating crimes. They are just doing what they are told, there are severe penalties in the military for not following orders, even the death penalty can apply.

LOL Clerks didn't order palates thats an exercise tape for women to lose weight , they order pallets. sorry couldn't help myself, your spelling is really good 99.9% of the time.


I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt the military was involved in any way with the towers. Private contractors were the ones who prepped the building I would guess, why have the military do it? That just seems like a bad idea waiting to get worse, someone would have definitely noticed a bunch of military personnel standing around.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> This large requires lots of military.
> 
> It requires clerks who shipped the tons and tons of explosives on palates. It requires demo experts. It requires Corps of Engineers. NORAD handlers... and on and on. That is why you wont.


It REQUIRES an REAL INVESTIGATION ... what part of that don't you get?



what... huh? said:


> I will make it easier.


For who?



what... huh? said:


> How many MINIMUM of your fellow service men had to be in on it?


They don't have to be "in" on it ... that part of your delusions. All who was "in" on it would come out in a REAL INVESTIGATION ... what part of that don't you get?



what... huh? said:


> You cannot, simply cannot, keep something of this scale quiet amongst men sworn to protect... us.


It wasn't kept quiet ... you keep covering your eye and ears so it seems quiet only to lovers of criminals government ... if it had been kept quiet ... we wouldn't be having this debate now would we? Sworn to protect us  do you ask them to come and tuck you in at night too? 




what... huh? said:


> side note... whatcha growin? LOL.


Something sweet tasting with great smell, and buzz ... as always


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> First off you never call someone who was in the Marines a soldier, you were never part of the military so you aren't in the know so I can;'t hold it against you,but now you know.


Didn't know, will not happen again. Didn't know you were in the marines either. I thought soldier covered all branches. What would be the appropriate term if branch is unestablished? 



NoDrama said:


> Marines are very disciplined, they follow orders blindly for the most part, they do not normally question motives until they have experience and rank. In the Military there is a chain of command that is followed, if a pilot was told to stand down, there is no argument, orders must be followed or people die. No One is "in on it" they all are complicit but just don't know what is going on nor do they have any clue that they are the ones perpetrating crimes. They are just doing what they are told, there are severe penalties in the military for not following orders, even the death penalty can apply.


Which is why I ask you for a number. This was 8 years ago. Not one would question why they were loading the ordinances in the WTC? 

I understand it is also the responsibility of the officer(?) to not comply with orders that violate their sworn duties... right?




NoDrama said:


> LOL Clerks didn't order palates thats an exercise tape for women to lose weight , they order pallets. sorry couldn't help myself, your spelling is really good 99.9% of the time.


LOL... that is funny. I am a fair speller, but I do let spell check hit my typos and occasional mistake... clicked the wrong alternative. Why bother explaining it? Probably some level of insecurity.




NoDrama said:


> I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt the military was involved in any way with the towers. Private contractors were the ones who prepped the building I would guess, why have the military do it? That just seems like a bad idea waiting to get worse, someone would have definitely noticed a bunch of military personnel standing around.


But people loading the stress points with a hundred ton of ordinance would pass.

How many people occupy the situation room at NORAD on a given day do you suppose? They are service personnel no? Wargames, failsafe and Dr. Strangelove are my only references.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

Ughh my damned scissors are covered with so much hash they are starting to take a lot of effort to cut. Its Northern Lights, sticky and sickly sweet smelling, like cotton candy on a hot day.

I guess if one did not know what branch another served in (Although if you read the post you will see that it was mentioned), you would pose the question like you did, but since I had already stated what branch I was in I assumed you had read it. No harm done.

Not just officers, enlisted and warrants can also disobey orders on grounds of "Right or Wrong" but you may as well know that just because you disobey an unlawful order does not make your crime of disobeying it go away. You still get punished, but so does the person issuing the command. Anyway if you want someone to know nothing then you lie to them. Lets say i want you to run into a home and shoot everyone inside, now i know they aren't the enemy, but the people in that house pissed me off for some reason and I want them dead. All I gotta do is tell my men that "Terrorists" are holed up inside and won't come out and its their job to get rid of them before they kill us all. Nuff said, I tell a lie and the men do my bidding knowing nothing about the real motives. Easy! A conspiracy of many, only one is culpable though, the rest were duped.

Not every floor had to have demo, normally just the top and bottom floors, but the WTC was built like 3 buildings stacked on top of one another so I suppose there would ahve been more than typical. Not sure your guy's estimates of how much thermite it must have taken to do what it did is any where near correct. I have no idea since i have never actually pulled a building myself.

How many people occupy the situation room? None I hope, not unless there is a "Situation". Hollywood embellishes and distorts, never take anything you see in the movies as pertaining to anything that is "Real". Its all make believe. But im sure you know that, just like you know that cars that fall off cliffs do not explode 99.999% of the time in reality, but in the movies its 100%.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 10, 2009)

That is why I was asking. I have been inside NSA, and one hand has no idea what the other is doing. As a contractor I knew even less. Working blind on tying together things you aren't allowed to understand is an interesting chore. That was back when I could keep a clearance. I am jealous of your scissors. I live on a farm, and when you say crops I think crops... then it occurred to me where I was. Glad you are in the stick nasty.

I knew you were military from my first ass kicking on ordinance. I didn't know I had been told which branch.

Another question... Semper Fi(delis)... I always feel an urge to say it... but if some candy ass civi said it to me and it held value to me, I would probably ask that they not... so I never have. How is that taken from non military? I am very at odds with showing support, and not being a douche. I really cannot tell you the value I hold in service members. Even jackasses are ode my gratitude. Very hard for me to be an asshole to them. I have had to work very hard at being such a prick to you. I just want you to be aware.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

Semper Fi is what the Marines say, its shortened from Semper Fidelis which you apparently know and it means "Always Faithful" . The only time I ever said it was when talking to another Marine, so you don't hear it too often and any civilian who said that to me would be a suspect former Marine. I wouldn't be feeling dishonored or anything to have someone else say it to me, but theres always that one Jar Head who is gonna rip off your head and shit down your neck just for what he thinks is you trying to be cute. There are some real crazy fuckers in the USMC, some real killers who if left out on the street would certainly be spending life in prison. Good idea to err on the side of safety.

Lot of work yet to do here.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 10, 2009)

Stinkygreens said:


> Just tried to watch the first video.. That was the stupidest shit i have ever saw.. If you think bush was behind 911 your a moron.


----------



## EzGroW (Jul 11, 2009)

lol its amazing how people can be so blind, that was me before i decided to get off my lazy ass and stop going on hearsay and educated my self, all well some dont want to wake from their blissful slumber, humans really arent that intelegent our ignorance is killing us when really its all so simple, too bad


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 11, 2009)

Hey everyone, I just made this poll to see what the numbers actually are. Go vote, simple as fuck.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/212599-911-poll-do-you-believe.html


----------



## wyteboi (Jul 11, 2009)

"Private contractors were the ones who prepped the building I would guess"
yea that would be my guess too.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 11, 2009)

EzGroW said:


> lol its amazing how people can be so blind, that was me before i decided to get off my lazy ass and stop going on hearsay and educated my self, all well some dont want to wake from their blissful slumber, humans really arent that intelegent our ignorance is killing us when really its all so simple, too bad


Do you mind clarifying ... I'm not sure of your point of view.



PadawanBater said:


> Hey everyone, I just made this poll to see what the numbers actually are. Go vote, simple as fuck.
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/politics/212599-911-poll-do-you-believe.html


I voted, but there was a poll on this a while ago and the results were clear ... Most of us understand 911 was an inside job. It will be interesting to see how folks vote the last poll is a bit dated and more info has been introduced since then.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 11, 2009)

Here's an interesting video find folks. News footage on 911 ...
9/11 Video Clips Corporate Media Would Rather Not Show You
[youtube]ckGn8p5k6q8&feature=related[/youtube]
It is rather curious that people and reporters at the pentagon site are not seeing anything that resembles a plane.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jul 11, 2009)

great find GR. The most accurate reports come right after/during an event...


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 11, 2009)

Here you go. Tons of videos of thermite burning. 

But what's the point really?

You'll just say bullshit, you aren't an expert in thermite, etc.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=thermite burning&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Jul 11, 2009)

Wow, so you really don't believe we landed on the moon, Rebel?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 11, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Wow, so you really don't believe we landed on the moon, Rebel?


Oh really? ... and pray tell when did I said that? Bet you can't find anything. You people really love to make shit up when you can't counter facts. How pathetic. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with 911 ... try and focus on the issue.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 11, 2009)

Hey guys ... remember in my post where I told you about the employee of UL that got fired? Well he put out a pretty extensive paper.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00124.htmKevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers
Bremer was on the international advisory board for the Japanese mining and machinery company, Komatsu. At the time, Komatsu had been involved in a joint venture agreement with Dresser Industries, the oil-services/intelligence front in which Prescott Bush Sr. and George H. W. Bush got their start with Neil Mallon. The Komatsu-Dresser mining division operated from 1988 to 1997.*In July 1996, it patented a thermite demolition device that could demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, *while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.[25] *Residues of thermite, the highly energetic chemical mixture, have been confirmed in samples of the WTC dust, and the use of thermite at the WTC was also revealed by environmental data.*[1, 2, 3, 4, 26] *Dresser Industries merged with Dick Cheneys Halliburton in 1998.*
More info that blows hw and others bullshit out the window. 911 was an inside job, more evidence to that fact comes out everyday. I thank God this isn't going away. We have to keep the pressure on to get a real investigation. You will see that this guy backs all his shit. He's got a ton of footnotes at the end of the article ... and as you can see lots of referral in his article. So those that say "well how did they get all those explosives in the building" ... here ya go.

Here are a few snips from the paper.


One important way to see the false nature of Bushs conspiracy theory is to *note the fact that the World Trade Center buildings could only have fallen as they did through the use of explosives*. A number of independent scientific studies have pointed out this fact [1, 2, 3, 4], but it was Bushs own scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),* through their inability to provide a convincing defense of the official line*, who ultimately proved that explosives were necessary
Throughout the life of the WTC buildings, modifications were made to each structure. The modifications included upgrades to electrical, fire protection, and elevator systems, as well as general construction activities


 9/11, American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north face of the north tower (WTC 1) between floors 94 and 99. In a stunning coincidence, these floors bracket those that had been upgraded for fireproofing shortly before 9/11


Baseline was led by a very interesting individual named Joseph Kasputys, who had a history of being *well connected to the highest levels of government*, as well as to defense and intelligence industries. Kasputys worked, from 1972 to 1977, for the US departments of commerce and defense. He was also the deputy director of Nixons White House taskforce that dealt with the Arab oil embargo of 1973, and he was instrumental in the creation of the Department of Energy (DOE). 
Kasputys connections to the DOE, from 1977 through at least 1997, are interesting c*onsidering that the DOE was developing thermite ignition devices as early as 1983*.[29] Additonally, national laboratories working within the DOE developed nanothermites in the late 1990s. Nanothermites are explosive thermite mixtures where one or more reactants are present at the nanometer scale. These are also called super-thermites due to the extraordinarily large amount of energy released upon ignition
What did I tell ya ... under the guise of "construction" they could easily plant explosives in the key places needed to bring those buildings down. The facts are staring in us in the face ... it's impossible to ignore the truth, unless you are one of those individuals that simply can't handle the truth. Pay particular attention to the parts of the article that states all those that benefited from 911.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 12, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Wow, so you really don't believe we landed on the moon, Rebel?


Anti your so full of crap it amazes me. You have not brought 1 single shred of evidence supporting your claim that 19 people led by someone in a cave circumvented NORAD, The military, The FAA, local airport security and then somehow precisely flew the planes into the buildings to make them fall and disintegrate. You look like a fool from where I am standing. Only desperate people on there last leg start attacking people like you do.

I suppose you also believe that we got into the Vietnam war because they attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin?


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 12, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Here you go. Tons of videos of thermite burning.
> 
> But what's the point really?
> 
> ...



The only thing you've proven with these videos is that thermite gets really hot and melts through metal. Not sure what your trying to prove with this, besides evidence points to NANO thermite being used, which none of your vids show.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jul 12, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I suppose you also believe that we got into the Vietnam war because they attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin?


lol if he believes that, he's totally insane. the govt literally released how gulf of tonkin was BS like 4 years ago.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 13, 2009)

These kids from we are change LA are awesome! They have taken "scientific proof of TEASON to members of congress and other DC Players". Copies of the paper sighting evidence of nano thermite being found in the dust at the WTC are being handed out to several members of congress ... Check out B. Franks ... the asshole acts like they own him money! He didn't want anything to do with it. Ried was the same way ... you should see all the fucking body guards that old fuck has ... Plus the members that they handed the paper to, are told either do something or be held complicit. Beautiful!
WACLA delivers scientific proof of TREASON to members of Congress and other D.C. players. DAY ONE
[youtube]mtCxBNaKr90&feature=channel_page[/youtube]
This is day two ... there was one congress woman who was receptive to the information. 
Now notice folks in these video they will give the name and what committee if any these congress people are on. Pay particular attention to their reactions ... very interesting.
WACLA delivers scientific proof of TREASON to members of Congress and other D.C. players. DAY TWO
[youtube]vrcSaxKCtmY[/youtube] 
I tell ya these folks have got their shit together.  They make me proud to be an American.

Here something from Alex Jones ...
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1615Wayne Madsen on Alex Jones Tv NSA, Thermite & Flight 93!
Wayne talks about the report I posted about NSA coming down on any of their employees that talk about 911. They are doing everything they can to keep things quiet.
So many reports just crawling from the internet ... it's like it's never ending! ... move over Michael Jackson!

Here's another interesting report ... check this one out ...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20614Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal
After the paper entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.
However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.
But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm). Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her major advanced research points out that, already by 2003, she was the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 14, 2009)

Here's a link to a video that give an into nanotechnology. It will wow you. They take a hair ... and say a nano is 100,000th of that ... wow.

http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/nanotech-and-911.htmlVideos: Intro to Nanotech + 911 Truth
As the 911 Truth movement moves along it is a challenge for members of the Truth movement to keep informed. I hope these videos will help in this regard 

The second video is a video that has already been posted. You can watch it again if you wish ... still very interesting.


----------



## wyteboi (Jul 14, 2009)

Thats a niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice find Reb! i just wish more architects would join them in DEMANDING AN EXPLANATION ! 
(well we know what happened but they need to give us more excuses on why.............)


----------



## huffy420 (Jul 15, 2009)

Check out this one. This guy is a controlled demolitions expert who had no previous knowledge about the collapse of WTC 7. He watched it before being told what it was and was in SHOCK when he finds out if fell on 9/11 as well.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 16, 2009)

Nice find huffy ... and I get the impression this guy bought the bullshit about the other two towers ... so it was really a shock when he found out that tower fell on 911 too, he had no explanation other than it was demo

Here a video I found ... it's of a French comic that is talking about it. He plans to talk to Obama about it. That should be good if he video the interview. Funny how we have to depend on comics to get the real news.

Famous French Comic Bigard To Address Obama About 9/11 
 You may recall a previous article about the famous French Comic Jean-Marie Bigard published here on 911blogger in October 2008. Jean-Marie Bigard was fiercely criticized for publicly claiming that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an &#8220;enormous lie&#8221;. Since then he has become persona non grata in the media because of his &#8220;deviant thinking&#8221;.
However, Bigard isn&#8217;t letting all of this get him down: &#8220;Opening my big mouth cost me a lot. But I think what has cost me even more was keeping my big mouth shut. So now I&#8217;ve decided never to shut my big mouth again&#8221;, Bigard said recently.
He has two videos ... in the first he talks about the passport that was found ... in the second he ask the same questions I did about NORAD standing down. I hate the can laughs, but I guess that's how the French do it. 


Here's another report for a calling for a new investigation ...
Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation
After 9-11, with the knowledge I had of the bitter internal dispute inside the FBI that was being hushed up but had kept some of our better agents from possibly uncovering more of the 9-11 plot before it happened, I couldn&#8217;t forget two of the slides in that Law Enforcement ethics curriculum: &#8220;DO NOT: Puff, Shade, Tailor, Firm up, Stretch, Massage, or Tidy up statements of fact.&#8221; And &#8220;Misplaced Loyalties: As employees of the FBI, we must be aware that our highest loyalty is to the United States Constitution. We should never sacrifice the truth in order to obtain a desired result (e.g. conviction of a defendant) or to avoid personal or institutional embarrassment.&#8221;


BREAKING NEWS!
NYCCAN
The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now has come together to lead a disciplined and patriotic search for answers about September 11th towards one tangible goal: the creation of an independent and impartial subpoena powered investigation into the September 11th attacks on our great nation.


On November 3, 2009, we will go to the polls to vote for answers to the unanswered questions and for solutions to the illnesses afflicting thousands of first responders and NYC residents. 
This is great news ... if these guys and put the pressure on for an independent investigation, and they have a legal right to it ... there will be a lot of government elite sweating over it ... you can bet on that ... I will be watching closely this November.

More news ... 



Washington set to buy Silverstein's WTC lease


The US government is poised to buy the lease on the destroyed World Trade Centre from the property magnate Larry Silverstein in an attempt to seize the initiative in the increasingly bitter dispute about the future of the site.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
Because the dispute is calling attention to the very strange acquisition of the site by Silverman in the first place, and his even stranger buying of excessive anti-terror insurance on the complex.




Another video in response to WACLA ... 

911 New Investigation - Ron Paul And Adam Kokesh Answer Sheriff Mack's Initiative
[youtube]c79Z9sxVAKU&feature=channel[/youtube]

Retired Sheriff Richard Mack from Graham county, AZ. Recently authored "The Sheriff County - America's Last Hope" and in a recent interview he called for a new independent 911 investigation and offered to participate.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 16, 2009)

I found a dated video that really sums up the evidence well ... in fact I would love to hear from the government believers to explain a few things ... you guys are so good at it I can't wait to hear how you are going to disregard these "*facts*".
This video is on Google ... it is a little over 18 minutes long ... I know how the government believers never bother to watch any videos so I will write out the questions the video presented. Give us your brilliant explanation on this

911 Justice

Question 1 ...
Why was General Myers ... the man in charge of air defense was promoted to chairman of the joint chief of staff one week after the worst breech of military defense in history with not one shot fire to stop those planes? Why wasn't this man fired?

Question 2
At 1:45 min into the video it makes the point I made. We are expected to believe the that a slow moving large air craft can penetrate military air space and defense design to stop super sonic jets and missiles without being fire upon? Not to mention this plane was able to do it *50 minutes AFTER we knew the country was under attack*. Please explain that one. Where was NORAD?

Question 3
At 2:15 the film state that we are expect to believe that before hitting the pentagon the plane was able to make a 250 degree turn exposing it's broad side and it not being fire upon? Reports revealed that if the plane had not made this incredible turn and went in on a straight course it would have hit the office of Rumsfeld and other top brass officials ... hummmm. 

Question 4
3:45 into the video a Frank A DeMartini *manager of the WTC construction & project management *talks about how no skyscraper has ever collapse due to plane strike or fire ... and shows example of buildings ... that fell or collapsed in the past. He also states as I have that those building were design to withstand the impact of SEVERAL 707 which are heavier than the plane that hit the tower. 4:30 into the video he states why. Explain that one ... and please don't tried and tell us that the man in charge of construction of the towers is lying or doesn't know what he is talking about. That won't fly.

Remember folks documents show that all the plane fuel was gone 20 minutes after impact ... those infra-red photos I posted proves that ... 

Question 5
5:00 into the video you see the explosions coming from the building as it collapses. They have arrows pointing them out. And it is not "force air" because you can see the same shit when they show a picture of a building being demo. Where did all the explosive force come from ... since we know the building cooled after the jet fuel ran out ... Explain that.

And if you want to go with the pancake theory ... don't ... the central tower was indestructable ... it would have still been standing. At 5:30 the video goes over the construction of the building and how it's impossible for it to come down for the reasons the government gave.

Question 6
At 6:00 into the video they show a building that pancaked in the past and it look NOTHING like what was left of the WTC. Where are the floors that should have been pancaked from the WTC? Explain that one.

6:20 into the video they show the explosive charges that took out the building then showed a building being demo ... same shit different day.

Question 7
At 8:11 they show Larry Silverstein stating "*they*" decided to have WTC 7 demolished ... who are "*they*" and how could "*they*" place explosives in key positions in a burning building? That shit takes months of planning so how did "*they*" know "*they*" were going to need to "pull" a building on 911? Plus how do we know that "*they*" didn't "pull" the other buildings as well?

Question 8
At 11:50 the video shows documents of drills the military did 3 months before 911 where planes flew into the WTC, yet Rice claimed they never dream that could happen ... explain that one.

Question 9
At 14:00 the video makes the same aguement I made about the fighters ... not to mention the fact that they DIDN'T need orders to shoot down planes that go off course ... someone gave an order NOT to shoot ... but listen to this part ... 
At 15:14 into the video a guy by the name of Norman Mineta the transportation secretary *accidently told the bogus 911 commission who gave the order NOT TO intercept* those planes ... guess who? Explain to us government believes why when the aid kept coming to the bunker stating the distance of the plane as it closed in ... when he returned for the last time and told them the plane was 10 miles out and ask did the order still stand he was told "of course the order still stands ... have you heard anything to the contrary?" What was that order? We know it couldn't have been to intercept ... now don't we ... I'd love to hear you government believers so called explanation on that one. It's more proof that *911 was indeed an inside job.*

Folks on their best day these government believers will* never *be able to explain away the evidence presented in this video ... NO WAY ... but lets see if they make a feeble attempt.


----------



## Dolce Vita (Jul 16, 2009)

does anybody see the resembelance between 911 and out country becoming socialist. and germany's socialist govt burning the reichstag??


----------



## jrh72582 (Jul 16, 2009)

Dolce Vita said:


> does anybody see the resembelance between 911 and out country becoming socialist. and germany's socialist govt burning the reichstag??


Whether or not 9/11 was a big conspiracy or not, we already know the Bush administration capitalized on the fear by taking away our liberties. Was their big plan to take these liberties away so that they could implement socialism? No. They just wanted to exploit so they could get richer and it worked. They got more control. More control does not equal socialism. Socialism requires more control, but it's not the only avenue. Do you understand what I'm saying? 

I don't think the grand scheme all along was to implement socialism. Bush had completely different ideologies in mind. And I'm sorry, but I have no youtube videos to back up my claims so you'll dismiss me anyway.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jul 17, 2009)

I know in late 2002 I seen a pic of the left side of flgt 77. I never seen that pic again. Ive scoured for years looking for that pic. 

Almost looked digitally enhanced, from the gate vids or helipad area at the pent. I swear to you i seen the plane and the sun glaring off the windows, and the cockpit, a plane, almost level to the ground, gears up, I could see 3 passengers faces on the plane, a woman, with a look of horror on her face, it may have been fake, but stuck with me for years.

Everytime I hear about a conspiracy, I try to think of that pic that I KNOW I SEEN, and remind myself how much it made me change my thoughts and views on this. 

All the gov has to do is release this vid, or pic to us to shut the conspiracy down. I believe they won't, because they value the lives of more than proving something in my own heart I believe that. Its not my religion twisting me, or thoughts planted conveniently in my mind. I know what I seen that day I cried nonstop.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 17, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> I don't think the grand scheme all along was to implement socialism. Bush had completely different ideologies in mind. And I'm sorry, but I have no youtube videos to back up my claims so you'll dismiss me anyway.


Not necessarily ... when you give your opinion and don't try to pass it off as a fact then you don't need a link ... some folks here and I won't mention any names wh, oloso, have a problem with doing things like that ... 



snowmanexpress said:


> All the gov has to do is release this vid, or pic to us to shut the conspiracy down. I believe they won't, because they value the lives of more than proving something in my own heart I believe that. Its not my religion twisting me, or thoughts planted conveniently in my mind. I know what I seen that day I cried nonstop.


It's going to take more than a video to shut the conspiracy down. The ONLY way they are going to do that is to have an independent non partisan investigation where witnesses must testify in public under oath ... which they would rather kill us than do that. According to Alex Jones most people in corporate media already know 911 was an inside job ... they are just afraid to talk about it. I don't believe they are afraid ... I believe it goes against their best interests.
Now ... does anyone have an answer to one or more of the questions from the video I posted?


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 17, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> I know in late 2002 I seen a pic of the left side of flgt 77. I never seen that pic again. Ive scoured for years looking for that pic.
> 
> Almost looked digitally enhanced, from the gate vids or helipad area at the pent. I swear to you i seen the plane and the sun glaring off the windows, and the cockpit, a plane, almost level to the ground, gears up, I could see 3 passengers faces on the plane, a woman, with a look of horror on her face, it may have been fake, but stuck with me for years.
> 
> ...



So the plane flying into the pentagon would explain the 2 towers and WTC #7, 

I very much doubt it would have ANY effect on the truth movement at all since it does absolutely nothing to debunk the WTC collapses. You just keep believing that steel building can fall into themselves at any minute with minimal damage.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jul 17, 2009)

Yes, you show me the plane it will shut down all you guys. I know you seen it rebel. 

You....im sorry I didnt mean to say you, not "you" rebel, "it" holds no water, to me, this idea, Its been almost a decade of this so called "catalyzing event" 

How far back do you wanna go? Pearl Harbor? American Revolution? Civil War? Hitler? Where is the catalyst? How far back tell me? All the way back to this bible ha? 

Im hoping for a life of happyness and well-being for all. Optimistic ideals someone said to me. And I refuse to believe this story, Alex Jones, or the media. 

I have eyes, ears, a mouth, and lately, fingers on a stupid ass keyboard and this piece of junk called a mouse. 

I respect you, greatly sir, and your views, I hope we all find some kind of truth together in the world. I highly doubt we will find human morals in the wings of court on this matter. And this may go deeper than justice and a gavel.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 17, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> Yes, you show me the plane it will shut down all you guys. I know you seen it rebel.


 If you mean the plane you described in your last post ... no I haven't seen or heard anything about it. I'm not saying you didn't, but I have not heard of it. It could have been a fake picture, and like NO stated ... it still doesn't address the WTC towers.


snowmanexpress said:


> You....im sorry I didnt mean to say you, not "you" rebel, "it" holds no water, to me, this idea, Its been almost a decade of this so called "catalyzing event"


I'm shocked it's taking this long to fully bring the truth to the Light. The elite that want to control us have a firm hand in the corporate media and the WH. But just because it's taking a long time doesn't mean we can't pursue the truth.



snowmanexpress said:


> How far back do you wanna go? Pearl Harbor? American Revolution? Civil War? Hitler? Where is the catalyst? How far back tell me? All the way back to this bible ha?


How far back do I want to go? 911 ... does that answer your question?



snowmanexpress said:


> Im hoping for a life of happyness and well-being for all. Optimistic ideals someone said to me. And I refuse to believe this story, Alex Jones, or the media.


You don't have to believe Jones or the media ... just look at the clear evidence ... it's not the messenger ... it's the message and the evidence. What about the evidence that has been presented in this thread you doubt and why? Are you comfortable that no heads rolled after the worst security breech in US history? 



snowmanexpress said:


> I respect you, greatly sir, and your views,


Who? .... me? ... I'm not a sir.




snowmanexpress said:


> I hope we all find some kind of truth together in the world. I highly doubt we will find human morals in the wings of court on this matter. And this may go deeper than justice and a gavel.


I ain't gonna argue with that. There is no doubt 911 goes deeper ... and it's going to be up to the people to stop the elite and their plans for world domination.


----------



## Dolce Vita (Jul 17, 2009)

if the government was not hiding anything in their report, then why would they not want an independant investigation?? they would come to the same conclusion as the govt if their report was right. am i right?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 17, 2009)

[URL="http://www.reinvestigate911.org/"]Reinvestigate 911 Breaks into Parliament[/url]
In a breakthrough for campaigners, a meeting has been held in the new Parliamentary extension Portcullis House at which speakers challenged the official story of the 9/11 attacks. This was the first time since the attacks nearly eight years ago that MPs and Peers heard - on their own premises - the widespread view outside it: that 9/11 might have been an inside job.
Might be? Please! 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-truth-still-in-a-cloud-of-smoke.htmlhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/911-truth-still-in-a-cloud-of-smoke.html[URL="http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-truth-still-in-a-cloud-of-smoke.html"]9/11 truth still in a cloud of smoke? [/url]
Eight years after the tragedy of 9/11, questions remain unanswered. A group of experts has convened in Washington to discuss what they think happened. Their theories are in stark contrast to the official version.
No!
Oh and notice in the video that no corporate media is present at this meeting of experts ... I wonder why?


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 17, 2009)

i found this post that really explains why jet fuel cannot be the cause of the steel failing.

"LRRP 1968 Says: 
July 16th, 2009 at 5:56 am the World Trade Center buildings collapsed as a result of fires ignited by jet fuel.
The above is absolutely and physically impossible. Thermodynamics 101.
Weakened steel does not fail explosively. It gradually loses strength along its stress-strain curve and then only in the areas that attain the temperatures required to fail. Steel is an excellent heat conductor and will conduct heat away from the point of application. The materials specific heat will show you how much it has to absorb in order to get hot. This is measured in BTUs / mass. You can have flames as hot as you like but if there is not enough heat energy available to heat up the material you will do nothing.

An example of this is your stove at home. A gas range burns propane at 3254 F. An aluminum pan melts at 1220 F. This should make it impossible to cook on a gas range, as the pan would melt or at least soften into putty, but it does not because heating materials is complex and actually pretty difficult. Heat goes away very fast and you have to continue to pour BTUs into it above the rate that it loses the heat. This is not easy.
I just made myself a omelet, the pan miraculously didnt melt.
There was not enough heat value in the jet fuel to come anywhere close to making the steel hot enough to fail. You will run out fuel long before that happens and the math is straight forward.

You simply take the tons of steel in question, the amount of BTUs it would take to make the steel hot, including the concrete and the air and you just cant do it.
In fact it is so far from possible, the fires cannot be a factor, the temperature would not have even come close to the starting of the elastic region.
Anyone who repeats the jet fuel burns at xxx and steel loses yy% of it strength at xxx temp is an idiot or a liar or just cannot understand the physics involved here.
That this was an official explanation tells me that they are lying. When a suspect lies, ask any cop what that tells him.
 as an aside, jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees all right  IN A JET ENGINE. A jet engine forces air through a compressor to get enough volume and mass of O2 to support the combustion. You cannot get the fuel to burn at anywhere near that temp in open air, there is not enough mass air flow for an optimal stoichiometric ratio.
Even if you could, which you cant kerosene only yields 18,500 Btu/lb in perfect conditions. 
In open air youd be lucky to get 20% of that efficiency, but even at 100% efficiency there arent enough BTUs to heat up the steel past about 700 degrees.

If you use a full fuel loading with zero gallons burned in the fireball and zero gallons sent down the elevator shaft to blow up the lobby you still only have enough fuel to to get the steel up to 500 degrees or so. Thats with optimal heat transfer into the steel, best case conditions of delta-T and R values, with worst case delta-t for the heat LOSS from the steel. As material heat up they radiate and conduct heat AWAY at a rate governed by the temperature and ambient factors. So the hotter the steel gets the more heat it LOSES. This is why steel mills use crucibles to hold the steel as well as the heat.

The specific heat of steel is 240 btu/ton per degree > to raise the temp from ambient to 1800 degrees would require 432,000 btu/s ton at OPTIMAL efficiency. The concrete requires even more over 800,000 btus. 
The the air also has to heat up, and air being a poor conductor and all the humidity in the air, the specific heat of water is 8 times higher than steel and 5 times high than concrete.
Its a rather long equation but not really complex. Bottom line, not enough BTU to make the steel hot enough to fail. Cant be done. Something else brought the buildings down. If they didnt fall immediately after the impacts there is now way the fires could have triggered it as the tensile and compressive strength of the steel did not change at all ( reference the stress-strain diagram for structural steel) after the fires did their work. It never exceeded its maximum working stress, if it did, the top would have fallen over towards the point of maximum damage. It would have done this slowly as the stress progressed along to top of the curve to the point of maximum or ultimate strength. The metal would be very deformed at this point.
From the the origin to the point called proportional limit, the stress-strain curve is a straight line. This is called Hookes Law that within the proportional limit, the stress is directly proportional to strain up to the elastic limit. That is the limit beyond which the material will no longer go back to its original shape when the load is removed, or it is the maximum stress that may be developed such that there is no permanent or residual deformation when the load is entirely removed. 
The structural damage by the impact either failed the structure right away or the it brought it past the elastic limit. If it reached a certain point  the curve here is actually longer that the portion from 0-the EL, the steel will start to deform plastically, that is bend like taffy. There was zero evidence of this.

The diagram for the temperatures tells us that the steel would have to attain a consistent temperature across the entire beam of way over 1500-1800 degrees, a point stress is not enough to induce failure, and there is no way to a localized temperature peak this high without the heat conducting to the rest of the beam. This is shown by the transfer equation is governed by the composition and shape of the beam, Shape is vital in that an I-beam or box had a high surface area to volume ratio, This means heat loss radiated away form the source of the heat is going to be very high, also humidity in the air will absorb the heat faster as water can take a lot of heat before raising its temperature so initial heat transfer AWAY form the steel will be even higher.
If as they will say that the fireproofing was all blown away by the impact makes it even harder, as the steel can radiate more heat if it is uncovered.
We can also calculate the rate of heat transfer INTO the steel beams. It is a function of the differential temperature, the specific heat of the steel, the surface area of the expose material and the R value of the air or any remaining building materials between the flame and the steel, as well as the airflow ( mass flow rate of hot air). 
Al these factors except R can be definitively identified. using the maximum value for R, youd run out of fuel ( assuming 100% fuel loading on the plane with zero for elevator shaft and fireball) before you got a 700 degree T-rise anywhere.
But the Kean Commission weenies also state that vast amounts of fuel poured down the elevator shafts to account for the damage to the ground floor. So where that that leave us?
Youd be lucky to be able to do a marshmallow roast with what was left after the fireball anyway.
It doesnt work and there is no way to make it work. the official story is a sham and any one who believes it is an ignorant fool. "


What you think???? Don't you just love science?


----------



## PadawanBater (Jul 17, 2009)

GREAT post NoDrama!

That pretty much lays it all out. A lot of the stuff is exactly what I was thinking. If the fires caused the steel to stress to the point of collapse I would think you'd see some type of pancaking effect, like NIST tried to claim happened. But that's not what you see, what happens is the building just all of a sudden stresses and collapses, it barely leans at all, it almost comes straight down.




Dolce Vita said:


> if the government was not hiding anything in their report, then why would they not want an independant investigation?? they would come to the same conclusion as the govt if their report was right. am i right?


Exactly! They'd claim something like it would waste too much taxpayers money, they'd play it out on their token brown noser, mainstream media, as if everyone pushing for an honest, open, nonpartisan, INDEPENDENT investigation is a kook, like they always do... When all anyone is asking for is the goddamn truth. Fuck the mainstream media.

@snowman - The biggest hole in that theory is that the government HASN'T released any pictures of video footage of what struck the pentagon. Using the logic your using it would seem they are infact trying to hide something.

I mean, one of the most secure buildings on the face of the planet didn't pick up ANY clear evidence of EXACTLY what struck the pentagon?? I think it's more likely that they did pick up what hit it and there is a reason they havn't released it. 

That alone would answer a lot of questions about 911. Why doesn't the government simply declassify the pics or videos they have to put all this to rest? Out of respect of the dead? That's bullshit, I'd never stand for that, if they have footage, I DEMAND they release it or I and many others have no choice about believing they're hiding something.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 18, 2009)

Your guy. Stephen E. Jones

http://web.archive.org/web/20051124053614/http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext+and+figures.htm

He believes he has evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, and that Jesus was running around in America 600 A.D. Awesome huh? Greatest accomplishment in physics to date? The solar funnel... for cooking. http://solarcooking.org/saveheat.htm







Don't you just love science?


I again point out that nano thermite reduces the ignition temperature to the point that it lights with regular ole fire. Everybody loves ignoring that. Go on... continue to... it suits. 

Drama, you said that the thermite would not have to be on every floor... I would submit that it MUST be, as the building fell from the point of impact downward. Another often avoided fact... in order to create a seamless destruction from the top down, you would absolutely have to place xxx on each floor. Sorry I am so busy guys. I really need to devote more time to this... but such is life.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 18, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Your guy. Stephen E. Jones Don't you just love science?


So are we to disregard science and facts ... not just Jones's ... because of his religious beliefs? Oh and for the great idea of solar cooking ... that's your argument for ignoring the obvious facts? How lame is that?




what... huh? said:


> I again point out that nano thermite reduces the ignition temperature to the point that it lights with regular ole fire. Everybody loves ignoring that.


Yeah and you know why ... because it's one of those opinions you try to pretend is a fact when it isn't since you have provided nothing to back that opinion. Yes ... we will continue to ignore that.



what... huh? said:


> Drama, you said that the thermite would not have to be on every floor... I would submit that it MUST be, as the building fell from the point of impact downward. Another often avoided fact... in order to create a seamless destruction from the top down, you would absolutely have to place xxx on each floor. Sorry I am so busy guys. I really need to devote more time to this... but such is life.


It doesn't matter at this point how much was use ... the fact still remains that IT WAS USED. Case close.


----------



## wyteboi (Jul 19, 2009)

"It doesn't matter at this point how much was use ... the fact still remains that IT WAS USED"
period.

now why do most people still argue bout whether or not it was "inside" ? ...............Oh yea i forgot the mainstream media "forgot" to report the inside job. Dont we have any non-mainstream that can at least try to report this ? someone that has access to a TV ? Well i guess the main problem is Most of the people with scientific evidence are on these forums............ IS THERE NOONE OUT THERE THAT IS "important enough" to really get the truth out ? THERE IS 100% TRUTH OUT THERE but the right people aint reportin it....... will the government kill them ? well just in case anyone forgot :
*U.S. MILITARY DEATHS (IRAQ):* 4328  *U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED (IRAQ):* *31431*  *IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS:* *151000*  *'EXCESS' IRAQI DEATHS:* *655000* and i am pretty sure thats *only* Iraq...
this is why we HAVE to get somthing done ....... and i believe eventually it will get done..? 
Anyways keep up the good work reb and drama and the rest of you guys who "care" !! Thank you for ALL the info, you guys are the best!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 19, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> "It doesn't matter at this point how much was use ... the fact still remains that IT WAS USED"
> period.
> 
> now why do most people still argue bout whether or not it was "inside" ? ...............Oh yea i forgot the mainstream media "forgot" to report the inside job. Dont we have any non-mainstream that can at least try to report this ? someone that has access to a TV ? Well i guess the main problem is Most of the people with scientific evidence are on these forums............ IS THERE NOONE OUT THERE THAT IS "important enough" to really get the truth out ? THERE IS 100% TRUTH OUT THERE but the right people aint reportin it....... will the government kill them ? well just in case anyone forgot :
> ...


You are welcome ... go check out some of my posts ... you will see there are indeed people who care about this and are working hard to bring this crime into the light. That local news station in SF Calif. got tons of thank you email for talking about 911. It's taking a while because the people who are suppose to up hold the law are the ones breaking them ... so I think some kind of civil action will have to go down. And those numbers of the dead are probably a lot higher than the so called "official" count.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 22, 2009)

This is a video from youtube where 2.4 trillion dollars the pentagon can't account for ... check out the war criminal speech the day before 911.
1 DAY BEFORE 911 WTC attack! DO u know what happened?WATCH!
[youtube]OlnQTcLHaMM&feature=related[/youtube]

Here a video from the Iraqi Vets ... 
http://stoplying.ca/video/Iraq_vets_know.htmIraq Vets know 9/11 truth, resisters need help
Iraq Vets Know 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Well I will certainly do all I can to help.
More ...
http://www.rense.com/general86/therm.htmUnderstanding The Use of Thermite on 911[SIZE=+1]
Begining with Larry Silversteen, it is time to arrest each accomplice within the Perle-Wolfowitz-Kissinger network of Neo-Cons, profiteering Zionist Money Merchants and mercenary killers domestic and foreign we know were involved. The Pentagon evidence was sufficient to convict them all, but the discovery of Dr. Steven Jones, carefully explained here, does for Silverstein what the Pentagon evidence does for Donald Rumsfeld and the entire Pentagon leadership.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Whoever impedes the necessary arrests at this point must be counted as complicit in this capital offense of treason, conspiracy, high-crimes and New Federal "hate crimes" according to our laws -- but more than that, they must be considered enemies of the United States under direct attack by a foreign enemy who has infiltrated our command structure.[/SIZE] 

This is another article that address the issue brought up in this thread ... like wh and olso bullshit about the aluminum. Plenty of good still shot too.


----------



## Dolce Vita (Jul 24, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYL4YlAqsPY haha worth watching yall


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 24, 2009)

Dolce Vita said:


> haha worth watching yall


For those of you that like a run down instead of clicking on a video ... this is about an ordinary bloke by the name of John Harris ... he is doing an interview on British TV about 911 ... among other things he makes an excellent point about 7 minutes into the first video about the elite making the people think they make laws ... like the patriot act ... to protect the people from terrorist, but in reality those laws are made to protect the elite from the people ... ain't that the truth ... who has to take their shoes off at the airport now? Who has to have a passport even to go to Canada now? Just a couple of examples ... so he makes a lot of sense ... he pretty much talks about the things that have been discussed on this thread along with our lost of liberties ... but still interesting interview if you have the time ... it's in 11 parts ... two hour interview.
I will put up the first two here if you like viewing video on site. 
1 ILLUSION OF REALITY by John Harris (1 of 11)
[youtube]vYL4YlAqsPY[/youtube]
illusion and the law THIS VIDEO INTRODUCES JOHN Something with deceptive appearance: something that deceives the senses or mind, e.g. by appearing to exist when it does not or appearing to be one... 
2 ILLUSION OF REALITY by John Harris (2 of 11)
[youtube]Un6HP3gRI9U&NR=1[/youtube]
illusion Video 2 covers 911 the charter of liberties. THE GATE KEEPER THE PERSON Something with deceptive appearance: something that deceives the senses or mind, e.g. by appearing to exist when ... 


Here some interesting bit of news ... be sure you read the comment section ... 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.htmlMagnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse
 *Webmaster's Commentary: *
Desperation on the cusp of madness.


Here's a rebuttal piece ... 
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/unusual-magnetic-forces-should-not-have.html"Unusual Magnetic Forces" Should Not Have Caused the Twin Towers to Collapse
 First it was the "new phenomenon" of "thermal expansion".
Now, Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, says the Twin Towers collapsed due to "unusual magnetic forces".
*Webmaster's Commentary:* 
Desperation on the cusp of madness.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 24, 2009)

John Harris is great, love his work. I have posted some vids of his too. Niow magnetic forces eh? what a bunch of BS, good find rebel!!


----------



## Dolce Vita (Jul 24, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> For those of you that like a run down instead of clicking on a video ... this is about an ordinary bloke by the name of John Harris ... he is doing an interview on British TV about 911 ... among other things he makes an excellent point about 7 minutes into the first video about the elite making the people think they make laws ... like the patriot act ... to protect the people from terrorist, but in reality those laws are made to protect the elite from the people ... ain't that the truth ... who has to take their shoes off at the airport now? Who has to have a passport even to go to Canada now? Just a couple of examples ... so he makes a lot of sense ... he pretty much talks about the things that have been discussed on this thread along with our lost of liberties ... but still interesting interview if you have the time ... it's in 11 parts ... two hour interview.
> I will put up the first two here if you like viewing video on site.
> 1 ILLUSION OF REALITY by John Harris (1 of 11)
> [youtube]vYL4YlAqsPY[/youtube]
> ...


The video i posted was a perfect example of satire. YOU WILL LAUGH IF YOU WATCH IT.

Its the darnedest thing. Today i have boon watching john harris's videos and trying to figure out how to do that in the US..

the biggest thing that i take from john harris is that what it all boils down to is common law. if i do not injure, harm or cause loss in any way then i cannot be acted upon by civil law by refusing consent to be accountable civil law. lol thats weird how i was looking into him today and its when you posted...


----------



## Dolce Vita (Jul 24, 2009)

SORRY SORRY i posted the wong link 

heres the one i meant to post... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jul 25, 2009)

Dolce Vita said:


> SORRY SORRY *i posted the wong link*
> 
> heres the one i meant to post... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8


ahh SUCH A STONER MOVE


----------



## Dolce Vita (Jul 25, 2009)

totally lol


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 26, 2009)

PBS station KBDI Denver Airs 9/11 Press for Truth
[youtube]kxWMDTuhxdI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
*Webmaster commentary:*

Just from reading the reviews, I will wager that this film never mentions the arrested Israelis.

Denver has a large viewing audience ... hopefully a lot were watching this program ... this PBS station was using a documentary about 911 for their fund raising drive ... they had a man who lost his son during 911 and is in the film on and the guy that made the film in the studio. 

The Science that proves 9/11 was an Inside Job
[youtube]6AXG6KEiM2k&feature=related[/youtube]
This is another video of Richard Gage going over the scientific evidence they have about the towers that when down on 911.

Here a way too cool music video ... it shows several examples of steel frame buildings that have caught fire, raged for hours and never came down to demonstrate no skyscraper has ever come crashing down due to fire alone. They give the date ... the year and the number of hours they burned.

Plus they have excellent videos of controlled demolishes ... pointing out the explosion before they come crashing down ... then they show the towers pointing out the explosions before they come crashing down. Be sure you check out 5 min. into the video the part about insider trading ... I have another really interesting video pertaining to that ... Plus music for the kids!

911 - The Debate Is Over - controlled demolition
[youtube]VFRIx5Mcs54&feature=related[/youtube]

Now this next video and the last 5 min. of the previous one answers the question some put forward in this thread ... "why would they blow up those towers?" ... these videos provide those answers. Just more straw to break the camel's back ... 
9/11 Resolution Trilogy Volume III: Pattern of the Times part 1 of 4
[youtube]aItdAk5Qemo&feature=related][/youtube]
Pay particular attention to the corporations mention and the people involved. Very interesting stuff and it show a money trail a mile wide.

Oh and check out this website folks ... this is where wh gets all his bullshit info from ...
Debunking 911
This is why he would never provide a link ... is he ashamed of the site ... I sure would like to know who owns that site ... if anyone can find out please post. I wouldn't be surprised if it was own by someone from PNAC. Of course they would make sure they covered their trail ... and use a good front. They will never stop the question about 911 no matter how technical or professional they may sound ... the questions will never go away until a real investigation take place ... and they don't want that to happen .... why? ... because 911 was an inside job.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 26, 2009)

Here are a few videos debunking the debunking911.com ...
Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical - Pt.1 of 9
[youtube]xbY5_qtz83M[/youtube]
A talk by Dr. David Ray Griffin 

Alex Jones Debunks the So-Called 9/11 Debunkers
[youtube]nVoEwcYzaOU&feature=related[/youtube]


So much for hw bullshit site ...


----------



## Operation 420 (Jul 26, 2009)

+ rep to GrowRebel. Intersting stuff.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jul 27, 2009)

growrebel.. im going to steal some of your info. cool? you're much wiser than me about this..


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 28, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> growrebel.. im going to steal some of your info. cool? you're much wiser than me about this..


It's not my info ... it's reports I've collected for the record for people like you ... help yourself ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 30, 2009)

More proof that we are indeed the majority ... my ... there are a lot of tin foil hats out there ... 

72% Of TVO Viewers Believes The U.S. Government Made 9/11 Happen
[youtube]eV99AVpI2f8&feature=related[/youtube]

Here's another video from real patriots of we are change ... 

WeAreChange NYC Confronts John D Rockefeller
[youtube]H87wE2M1Fe8[/youtube]

Here's a cool remake of "Staying Alive"
Bee Gees Admit 9 11 Was an Inside Job!
[youtube]SrUXQlcL4f8&feature=related[/youtube]


----------



## TreesOfLife (Jul 30, 2009)

TreesOfLife said:


> Explain building 7 falling from FIRE... It didn't even get hit by a plane so that excuse is out.
> 
> [youtube]7WYdAJQV100[/youtube]
> 
> ...





what... huh? said:


> BECAUSE A BUILDING 23 TIMES ITS SIZE, ENGULFED IN FLAMES, FILLED WITH MOLTEN METAL FELL ON IT.
> 
> 
> Jackass.


Total garbage, prove it sir. Explain why NONE of the surrounding buidlings fell, or had structual damage (minus the minor broken windows and the likes).


TreesOfLife said:


> Really? Got Evidence?





what... huh? said:


> It is all in the other thread, where it should be addressed. Go read that, start to finish so that you are at least caught up, or post there and I will reply. I do not engage grow rebel because he is irrational and continues to use arguments which he KNOWS are inaccurate. He is the only one in there rapid fire posting youtube videos and getting congratulated by his TFH click.
> 
> Post there, and I will answer any question you ask, so long as you answer mine, honestly.
> 
> ...


Let's see your evidence.


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 30, 2009)

TreesOfLife said:


> Total garbage, prove it sir. Explain why NONE of the surrounding buidlings fell, or had structual damage (minus the minor broken windows and the likes).















Does that look like damage to you? This is what happens when small steel buildings catch on fire. By the way... was building 5 hit by a plane? No. Did building 5 catch fire? Yes. Did it collapse? No. 








A bank. Wonder what made that gouge in it. I don't see a corner of wtc 1 on the ground there. Was the gouge an inside job thing too? Did they build something elaborate to make people believe that the building which just fell did damage to the ones around it?






What is the point of demolishing 7? They pulled 6. They let 5 burn. CREWS of firemen saw that building 7 was sagging, a sign of impending collapse, and were ordered to stop trying to put it out because so many had already died. 

I have to know going in, if you are going to say that the firemen in the NIST report on record, are part of the plot which murdered their brethren. That will help me figure out where to start.



TreesOfLife said:


> Let's see your evidence.


Molten metal pouring out of wtc 2







South face before







SW corner after






Fires visible on the opposite side of the building across several floors.






Evidence of everything that I claimed.

Any idea how much copper is on a given floor of wtc 1 or 2? Electrical wiring, phone lines, cat5... how about aluminum? Light enclosures, cubicle structures, computer cases, duct work... a lot of soft melty metals in a single floor... 







jet fuel melts stuff. This didn't even slam into a building at 500+.


That is enough for now.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 30, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> jet fuel melts stuff. This didn't even slam into a building at 500+.
> 
> 
> That is enough for now.


Not in the case of the WTC the infra-red photos that prove the building cooled down 15 minutes after impact when the jet fuel burned off. But of course facts like that destroys your image of your government keeping you safe ... 
and you continue to avoid posting your link to where you got this information ... could it be because it's from the debunked 911 debunked site? I thought so.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Jul 30, 2009)

[youtube]8YaFGSPErKU[/youtube]


----------



## wyteboi (Jul 30, 2009)

Just want to thank you Reb for all your EXCELLENT finds!!! with your help (and your finds) i have convinced a _few more _people. thats better than none!


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 31, 2009)

TreesOfLife said:


> [youtube]8YaFGSPErKU[/youtube]



Am I to take it that you concede the last argument, and now wish to move on to this one?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 31, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> Just want to thank you Reb for all your EXCELLENT finds!!! with your help (and your finds) i have convinced a _few more _people. thats better than none!


Thanks, but I have had a lot of great help from good people that get it. Trees, No, and others have submitted some great material. It pleases me that you were able to bring this Light to others, those that are not in denial will see the truth when it's presented.
There are Americans ... myself included ...that really do care about this country. She has been good to us and now she is being assaulted by war criminals. I feel I must defend this good lady, so I speak out and will continue to do so until these criminals are held accountable for their crimes.



TreesOfLife said:


> [youtube]8YaFGSPErKU[/youtube]


Trees ... thanks so much for posting this ... one of the so called investigator of 911 so full of it ... no evidence of molten steel ... right.  

I found it interesting when the gentleman waiting for the email address the investigator claimed he would give, refused to do so after the meeting. Clear evidence they want to cover up what really happen that day.


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 31, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Does that look like damage to you? This is what happens when small steel buildings catch on fire. By the way... was building 5 hit by a plane? No. Did building 5 catch fire? Yes. Did it collapse? No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is what I love about WH, he posts things that only make our argument stronger, for example the pic of the fires in WTC Building 7, those fires are pathetic I make bigger flames when I go camping, its impossible for those little fires to make the whole building collapse in an instant. There is no way you actually believe that they caused it to collapse, and If you truly do believe that, well you lose ALL credibility with me. Nothing in that building melted, maybe someplastic, but those fires aren't even 1% of the fires it would take to melt copper, I can't believbe you even said that the wires and stuff in the building would have ANYTHING to do with it, LMAO you have any idea how many miles of copper wire it takes to cause that much metal to pour out? You have no Clue WH, keep trying, but you only dig your hole deeper and deeper and everyone else is around the edge asking if you need a hand getting out, but you continue to dig. Fires do not cause steel skyscrapers to fall, period. You need demolition to do it, there is no other way short of full out military bombing or nuclear attack and I sure as fuck didn't see anythign like that. In fact the military was completely absent on the day the worst attack on US soil ever took place.

You have no power here troll, go back to your bridge!


----------



## mexiblunt (Jul 31, 2009)

I've probably posted this before but sprword.com is a great free documentary site that has a bunch of 911 related docs. I count at least 20 of em, most are 1.5 to 2 hours long. I'm sure alot of pieces have been posted in this thread but there is alot there for anyone who wants to see it!

Thanks again grow!!!!!


----------



## Keenly (Jul 31, 2009)

if you still think "terrorists" blew up the wtc 


maybe you should be first in line for your swine flu "vaccine"


----------



## mexiblunt (Jul 31, 2009)

Keenly said:


> if you still think "terrorists" blew up the wtc
> 
> 
> maybe you should be first in line for your swine flu "vaccine"


 I think that is a given. They will be there!


----------



## GrowRebel (Jul 31, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> I've probably posted this before but sprword.com is a great free documentary site that has a bunch of 911 related docs. I count at least 20 of em, most are 1.5 to 2 hours long. I'm sure alot of pieces have been posted in this thread but there is alot there for anyone who wants to see it!
> 
> Thanks again grow!!!!!


Thank you ... for the heads up on the 911 documentaries ...

Folks here is a direct link to the films in question ...

A Collection of 911 documentaries


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 31, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> This is what I love about WH, he posts things that only make our argument stronger, for example the pic of the fires in WTC Building 7, those fires are pathetic I make bigger flames when I go camping, its impossible for those little fires to make the whole building collapse in an instant.


That is the other side of the building... the fire which burned for 7 hours across a dozen floors.

The joints on the web trusses were the weak link... as I demonstrated a million pages ago.




NoDrama said:


> There is no way you actually believe that they caused it to collapse, and If you truly do believe that, well you lose ALL credibility with me.


LOL... so before today, you would have called on me as a credible reference? Somehow I don't feel as though I have lost much.



NoDrama said:


> Nothing in that building melted, maybe someplastic, but those fires aren't even 1% of the fires it would take to melt copper, I can't believbe you even said that the wires and stuff in the building would have ANYTHING to do with it, LMAO you have any idea how many miles of copper wire it takes to cause that much metal to pour out?


Well first... it wasn't that much. I am curious how many miles of whatever you think it was it takes to pour that much out. I don't think you understand how big phone trunk lines are in a building that size. The plane itself, copper, misc aluminum, plastic and everything else in those offices made a lava like flow of shit. What is your theory? That a couple of the "precision" (snicker) thermite bombs went off 7 minutes early, and the rest went in perfect and immediate floor by floor order? Remember, demolished from the top down, unlike any other demo... that means floor by floor. Just those went off 7 minutes early.

I am also curious if you have any idea what temperature a bank of industrial uninterruptible power supplies will burn at? Wanna hazard a guess as to how many banks of them existed in those buildings? Yes. I'm the loon. You do not account for reactable material in scale... 



NoDrama said:


> You have no Clue WH, keep trying, but you only dig your hole deeper and deeper and everyone else is around the edge asking if you need a hand getting out, but you continue to dig.


Your delusions of grandeur seem to make you happy, so I will not make you acknowledge the several arguments I have won... I will simply acknowledge your two.



NoDrama said:


> Fires do not cause steel skyscrapers to fall, period. You need demolition to do it, there is no other way short of full out military bombing or nuclear attack and I sure as fuck didn't see anythign like that.


Fires cause huge ass steel beams to weaken and collapse under oppressive weight. This is why you continue to argue the "type of structure" strawman of the bridge example. Because you don't like accepting that fires deformed steel beams with concrete on them. Period.







20 minutes.

I really just don't think you have any idea what was on fire in that building, and cannot say what temperature it was... nor can you explain the tanker fire which reduced the tanker to a four inch slag and destroyed the bridge in 20 minutes. You know the temperatures involved. How did the steel frame of the truck melt?



NoDrama said:


> In fact the military was completely absent on the day the worst attack on US soil ever took place.


I guess you forgot about the pentagon.



NoDrama said:


> You have no power here troll, go back to your bridge!


Now you are reduced to calling me a troll? Awesome... and it is funny that you mention power, as you seem powerless to answer a single question... which goes back how many pages now?


----------



## TreesOfLife (Jul 31, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> That is the other side of the building... the fire which burned for 7 hours across a dozen floors.
> 
> The joints on the web trusses were the weak link... as I demonstrated a million pages ago.
> 
> ...


The whole Fire brought it down is a crock. Watch these and the fire theory is debunked.


[youtube]j2_srNT8-Ow[/youtube]

[youtube]bbff_Ol-izY[/youtube]


----------



## what... huh? (Jul 31, 2009)

So again, are you conceding your first argument? @ TOL

This is not a rolling gang bang where you just continue to pile on bullshit on top of bullshit. I address each issue one at a time, then move on. If I am not discussing our specific argument then it is likely I am not talking to you.


----------



## fried at 420 (Jul 31, 2009)

listen to [9/11(was an inside joke)]
by star fucking hipsters


----------



## NoDrama (Jul 31, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> That is the other side of the building... the fire which burned for 7 hours across a dozen floors.


yep a measly 7 hours, we have multitudes of proof of buildings built less well burning for far longer and encompassing nearly 100% of the building in fire, so much that it makes the so called 12 stories ( 2 really) fire there look like a s'mores roast. I mean just look at your own fucking picture WH, are you totally blind? are you telling me that that little fire you have there caused a building to turn to dust? Your so full of shit Im surprised people can stand the stench you must give off. And the small facade damage on the corner would not affect the integrity of the building one bit, only a fool believes that steel buildings just fall into their own footprint from minor damage like that. They are designed to withstand a whole lot more than that.

Your little truck fire and bridge straw man argument of yours proves nothing, absolutely nothing. The differnces are staggering between a contained High Octane fuel fire that is concentrated vs. a low octane burst of fuel on a steel structure THOUSANDS of times larger than that tiny bridge section. not to mention it is covered in asbestos, the second best insulator known to mankind. 

You think a trunk cable is made of a solid piece of metal? its more insulation than metal there buddy, your going to need miles of it to create a big enough mass of melted metal to come pouring out of a building like that. Cat V cable is 8 strands of 22 Gauge wire, thats a tiny amount bro, don't even try to make it part of your theory, it will be shot so full of holes so fast you'll wish you never brought it up. A bank of UPS's burn at the same temp as a battery would, which by the way is much less than the temp needed to cause the disintegration of steel. Because thats what were really talking about here, even if the fires had gotten hot enough to cause the steel to bend, we would see that bending, the building just disintegrates before your eyes. By all standards it defies so many laws of physics, gravity and common sense it makes one gasp. I can't tell you the exact temps, but I can tell you by the color of the smoke that they aren't anywhere close to the temps needed to casue steel to lose all structural properties instantaneously across 100 floors, floors hundreds of feet away from any damage at all, floors that were in absolutely pristine shape, in fact 90% of the building was undamaged, yet you believe a small section caused the whole of 3 buildings to instantaneously collapse straight down at nearly free fall speed and it was all caused by a plane crash and some fires?

How come the Empire State building did not collapse when a B52 bomber plowed into it? It caught fire you know? I mean if you can use your truck and bridge straw man, then I will use the fact that the empire state building was hit by a plane and caught fire and did not fAll.

As far as your questions. I answered them all, but not to your side of the argument so you just keep saying I didn't answer them. Just like you don't answer any of my questions the way I would like, but I don't make up fairy tales like you do about them.

the military intervened in the pentagon event? Im pretty sure they did nothing until after the event happened, perhaps you can enlighten us with information not even the highest echelons of government was aware, please tell us how the Military was helping to stop these attacks?


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 1, 2009)

What exactly would be the point of blowing up building 7?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 1, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> What exactly would be the point of blowing up building 7?





> At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 2845.[6][24] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[25] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 4647 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][26]


The building had some importance. Were they trying to destroy something? I have no idea... That's why we are "truthers". We want answers.







The thing i love about wtc 7 is how building 1 and 2 fell... skipped wtc 6. then wtc 7 fell.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> yep a measly 7 hours, we have multitudes of proof of buildings built less well burning for far longer and encompassing nearly 100% of the building in fire, so much that it makes the so called 12 stories ( 2 really) fire there look like a s'mores roast. I mean just look at your own fucking picture WH, are you totally blind? are you telling me that that little fire you have there caused a building to turn to dust? Your so full of shit Im surprised people can stand the stench you must give off. And the small facade damage on the corner would not affect the integrity of the building one bit, only a fool believes that steel buildings just fall into their own footprint from minor damage like that. They are designed to withstand a whole lot more than that.


Poorly designed in this case, obviously. Again I ask... how hot does a bank of 50-200 UPS's burn?



NoDrama said:


> Your little truck fire and bridge straw man argument of yours proves nothing, absolutely nothing. The differnces are staggering between a contained High Octane fuel fire that is concentrated vs. a low octane burst of fuel on a steel structure THOUSANDS of times larger than that tiny bridge section. not to mention it is covered in asbestos, the second best insulator known to mankind.


You cant answer the questions. How did the trucks steel frame get reduced to nothing in a "normal" fire with no other combustible material? Those 6 beams holding that bridge up are the same size (different configuration) as the wtc, and designed specifically not to fail in those conditions.

All I have to demonstrate is that the adjoining struts joints failed under intense heat. Gravity handles the rest. Bolts had to stretch.



NoDrama said:


> You think a trunk cable is made of a solid piece of metal? its more insulation than metal there buddy, your going to need miles of it to create a big enough mass of melted metal to come pouring out of a building like that. Cat V cable is 8 strands of 22 Gauge wire, thats a tiny amount bro, don't even try to make it part of your theory, it will be shot so full of holes so fast you'll wish you never brought it up.


How about you not threaten to defeat my arguments and actually do so. I run cable almost every day in corporate environments. Let's take your 22 Gauge cat5. How many computers do you think exist on a single floor of the wtc? How many lines of the smallest wire? Let's be conservative... Lets say 300. How much copper is in a three foot section of a bundle of 300 cat5 cables? An ounce? A lb? 10? How many feet beyond 3 would be required to map the floor? The single floor?

How about electricity? That is GAW 6-8.



NoDrama said:


> A bank of UPS's burn at the same temp as a battery would, which by the way is much less than the temp needed to cause the disintegration of steel.


Ehhhhhhhnngh. Sorry. Try again... this time without a straw man. I never suggested disintegration.




NoDrama said:


> Because thats what were really talking about here, even if the fires had gotten hot enough to cause the steel to bend, we would see that bending, the building just disintegrates before your eyes. By all standards it defies so many laws of physics, gravity and common sense it makes one gasp. I can't tell you the exact temps, but I can tell you by the color of the smoke that they aren't anywhere close to the temps needed to casue steel to lose all structural properties instantaneously across 100 floors, floors hundreds of feet away from any damage at all, floors that were in absolutely pristine shape, in fact 90% of the building was undamaged, yet you believe a small section caused the whole of 3 buildings to instantaneously collapse straight down at nearly free fall speed and it was all caused by a plane crash and some fires?


Straw man. We have already established that the buildings fell differently than you expected. You do not get to presume how it should have fallen. How was this steel structure supposed to fall due to fire alone?

[youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]

Oh snap. 
Concrete reinforced steel structure... architecture building at university in Deft Netherlands. Partially collapsed due to catastrophic fire (has a cement core). Wonder what would have happened if a jet slammed into it?

So explain this partial collapse.

Show me thermite evidence. Look at all that dust... wow. 


"Normal fires do not cause steel structures to collapse."

Debunked. 



NoDrama said:


> How come the Empire State building did not collapse when a B52 bomber plowed into it? It caught fire you know? I mean if you can use your truck and bridge straw man, then I will use the fact that the empire state building was hit by a plane and caught fire and did not fAll.


Different design. No plane hit that architectural building and it partially collapsed. How is that possible?



NoDrama said:


> As far as your questions. I answered them all, but not to your side of the argument so you just keep saying I didn't answer them. Just like you don't answer any of my questions the way I would like, but I don't make up fairy tales like you do about them.


Fairy tales? Such as? 

I have asked you at least 20 times, how many people minimum would be required to pull off your conspiracy. You have argued that you can't possibly give an answer, and I have demonstrated that you can. I didn't ask how many, I asked how many minimum.



NoDrama said:


> the military intervened in the pentagon event? Im pretty sure they did nothing until after the event happened, perhaps you can enlighten us with information not even the highest echelons of government was aware, please tell us how the Military was helping to stop these attacks?


You said they were nowhere to be found. Some were found dead as the pentagon is a military target. You believe that the pentagon is either too stupid to be aware that they were part of the conspiracy, and those told to stand down are too stupid to figure out why, and keep going on record saying that no such order was given... so that THEY can be complicit in killing military officers.

They were in on it, or victims of it... either way... they were seen. Have you ever been to the pentagon?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

Buckling before collapse







Pretty accurate fucking hit, to have used thermite to destroy the columns on the floor just below first, before taking the rest of the building... with perfectly timed thermite devices moving from the top down.


Call it a strawman... I want your theory.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 1, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> So again, are you conceding your first argument? @ TOL
> 
> This is not a rolling gang bang where you just continue to pile on bullshit on top of bullshit. I address each issue one at a time, then move on. If I am not discussing our specific argument then it is likely I am not talking to you.


http://www.ae911truth.org/


 
*As your own eyes witness &#8212; WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:* (and some non-standard characteristics) 
1. Rapid onset of &#8220;collapse&#8221; 
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse 
3. Symmetrical &#8220;collapse&#8221; &#8211; through the path of _greatest_ resistance &#8211; *at free-fall acceleration* 
4. *Imploded*, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint 
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses 
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. 
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional 
10. Fore-knowledge of &#8220;collapse&#8221; by media, NYPD, FDNY 
*And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.* 
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires) 
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never &#8220;collapsed&#8221;. 






 
*As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives:* (and some non-standard characteristics) 
1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration 
2. *Improbable symmetry* of debris distribution 
3. Extremely *rapid onset* of destruction 
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes 
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph 
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking 
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: *no "pancaked" floors* found 
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 &#8211; 40 stories below demolition front 
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame 
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises 
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples 
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples 
14. *No precedent* for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire 
*And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.* 
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never &#8220;collapsed&#8221;


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

What do you not understand about what I have said? I mean... you quoted me... so it wasn't like you missed it. I said this is not just a roving youtube gangbang... it is a debate.

Are you afraid of going one argument at a time? Do you find safety in numbers?

DO YOU CONCEDE YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT?

If so, what, specifically, would you like to move to next? Because half of those 18 things I have destroyed in the last 3 pages since you came in. You have to actually address rebuttals, if you wish to have an argument. You can't just keep claiming your belief which has just been rebutted, as "fact", obscuring it in a flurry of OTHER bullshit. 

Man up, and follow the rules of debate, or there is no point in wasting time with you. Any time I debunk something, you just move to something else you think is more winnable. 

I have said I will address ANY FUCKING QUESTION, in order. I will absolutely admit when I am wrong, and have done so each time I have been since I came to this board, on any subject. 

Why can you people not stay focused?


Your original claim was...


TreesOfLife said:


> Total garbage, prove it sir. Explain why NONE of the surrounding buidlings fell, or had structual damage (minus the minor broken windows and the likes).
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see your evidence.



This was your original post. Your original argument was that 7 was the only building which sustained structural damage... and then asked me to support my claim that a really big building on fire fell on it... and I did.. and you have not contested anything that I have said. You just keep trying to make new points about single arguments I am having with other people.

Are you ready to concede this first argument before we move on?


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 1, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> The building had some importance. Were they trying to destroy something? I have no idea... That's why we are "truthers". We want answers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They have already given you the answer, the building collapsed due to fire.
You guys are all hell bent on believing it was part of some nefarious plot, and throw all logic out the window. You aren't even sure why "they" would do such a thing, yet you are sure they did it for some reason. Surely if they were trying to hide something they could have done it without blowing up the building. I mean these are the same people who planted explosives in a secure building, but they can't hide something without completely demolishing the building?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

They do not allow logic.


Only FACTS... which you must always capitalize. Unfortunately they have their own parameters for what constitutes a fact... er FACT.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 1, 2009)

random fact:

A steel structure has never, not once, collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> random fact:
> 
> A steel structure has never, not once, collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11



If you would actually read the posts, it might help when defining your random parameters for "facts".

[youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]

Steel structure, with the bonus of a cement core.




(see what I mean?)


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 1, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> If you would actually read the posts, it might help when defining your random parameters for "facts".
> 
> [youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]
> 
> ...


The building is still standing...



what... huh? said:


> What do you not understand about what I have said? I mean... you quoted me... so it wasn't like you missed it. I said this is not just a roving youtube gangbang... it is a debate.
> 
> Are you afraid of going one argument at a time? Do you find safety in numbers?
> 
> ...


Facts speak louder than words.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

The north wing completely collapsed. You may have noticed that it is different than wtc 1 2 or 7.


The north wing was a steel structure. It completely collapsed due only to "normal" fire.


Fact.



Silence speaks volumes. If you do not have the intellectual honesty to accept that you were incorrect about other buildings being made structurally unsound by the collapse of 1 and 2, then there is no point wasting time with you. If you wish to continue to debate the topic, that is one thing... but just ignoring evidence to the contrary and moving on is what heretics do.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 1, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> If you would actually read the posts, it might help when defining your random parameters for "facts".
> 
> [youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]
> 
> ...



*FACT*: that building is NOT a steel structure, it is a reinforced CONCRETE structure. You can find the facts about the fire and the building here :http://www.europeanfireacademy.com/cms/servlet/nl.gx.nibra.client.http.GetFile?id=710658&file=NSF09-Paper_Meacham_Mar29.pdf

Its a PDF document of the study done of the fire, it specifically states that it is a REINFORCED CONCRETE structure. Concrete cannot withstand fire the way Steel can. Oh and FWIW that fire raged for over 8 hours to cause a collapse. There goes your argument WH, find more lies for us to debunk.

For those who don't know, The building is the Architecture Facility at the University of Delft in the Netherlands. Its made of cement reinforced with rebar. IT IS NOT A STEEL BUILDING LIKE THE WTC BUILDINGS. Do not let What...Huh try to deceive you with lies.

edit: just went back and read your first post of this video and you actually posted that it was a reinforced concrete structure, which means that you have no clue what steel reinforced concrete is, Its a 1/2" piece of re bar ( Not Structural) through the middle of a slab of concrete, its used to help hold all the concrete together, it is not structural, i can take a piece of rebar and bend it into a circle with my bare hands. You can no longer argue this subject, you don't know the basics of what constitutes building materials. No wonder you believe they just fell.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

I said a concrete core. I do have some clue, while no expert.

I watched the demolition and you are correct. It is not a seel structure. I am wrong. I should have checked more before posting... my laziness. Should have done due diligence. I'm very sick, that's my excuse. People shouldn't have to do my research for me.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

The kader toy factory was a steel reinforced building that collapsed due to fire only. 







So was the McCormick Center in Chicago. It had similar web trusses which failed.







That hotel fire in madrid had a partial collapse due to fire only...

[youtube]9gUzoUYJ2ec[/youtube]

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

That concrete core I keep going on about. 

"The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors."

Yes ND... I will get to fireproofing. Right now I am addressing "normal fire" weakening and causing collapse of steel reinforced structures.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

The multitude of steel structures you have shown have had a couple of key differences... not that it really matters...

Most have a concrete core.
Most have a web like structure.
All have one or the other.











It was to make more office space... more shit to burn.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 1, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> The kader toy factory was a steel reinforced building that collapsed due to fire only.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very very cute. Obviously you didn't watch this video [youtube]j2_srNT8-Ow[/youtube]


----------



## pot scott (Aug 1, 2009)

as far as im concerned, if u got the nerve to say that 911 was an inside job, jus aim at ur head and pull the trigger


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 1, 2009)

pot scott said:


> as far as im concerned, if u got the nerve to say that 911 was an inside job, jus aim at ur head and pull the trigger


Why would we want to do that? Why does it take nerve to say the obvious? If you are a denier state your reasons and produce evidence to back your statements. If you just what to shoot your mouth off with mindless denier bullshit save yourself the trouble.

Wow ... you guys have been busy ... great videos ... you are really pouncing wh ... I love the way he believes he is winning arguments ... that kool-aid they give them really does the job. Remember several post ago when I told him the bridge shit don't wash ...we have proved time and time again ... apples and oranges ... so disregard any reference to the bridge ... well established to be bogus ... for those of you just joining us check the thread and you will see it was ground already covered.


----------



## pot scott (Aug 1, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Why would we want to do that? Why does it take nerve to say the obvious? If you are a denier state your reasons and produce evidence to back your statements. If you just what to shoot your mouth off with mindless denier bullshit save yourself the trouble.
> 
> Wow ... you guys have been busy ... great videos ... you are really pouncing wh ... I love the way he believes he is winning arguments ... that kool-aid they give them really does the job. Remember several post ago when I told him the bridge shit don't wash ...we have proved time and time again ... apples and oranges ... so disregard any reference to the bridge ... well established to be bogus ... for those of you just joining us check the thread and you will see it was ground already covered.


just pull it


----------



## Keenly (Aug 1, 2009)

pot scott said:


> as far as im concerned, if u got the nerve to say that 911 was an inside job, jus aim at ur head and pull the trigger


ostrich....


----------



## coomsual (Aug 1, 2009)

ccodiane said:


> No Mao, sorry, self loathing isn't a disability.


 
your a mindless ignorant prick...., now tell me what i am?????


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 1, 2009)

Only a portion of the Mccormick centers roof collapsed. the Majority of the building stayed intact. Everything inside was reduced to ashes. The trusses on the WTC building were many many times more durable as they had to support floor loads, while the McCormick center only had to deal with snow loads. Not a very good comparison, but the kool aid drinkers love to site it as evidence, but again it was only a partial roof collapse, not a single wall fell.

FYI Concrete cores are inherently much weaker than steel cored buildings. the WTC towers are steel cored, the windsor tower burned for 26 times longer than wtc #2 , the only part that collapsed was the concrete perimeter slabs that caused failure of 3 floors and causing them to completely collapse. The building stood, even AFTER the floors at the top Collapsed.HUH that doesn't make sense, the Govt said that the pancake theory would destroy the whole building, especially after having burned for MANY MANY times longer than WTC Towers. Again it proves that the WTC towers should not have fallen. Also none and I mean NONE of the steel was insulated with fireproofing, nor did it have a fire sprinkler system, Both towers and #7 all had fire suppression systems that were fully operational, but somehow coincidentally did not work at all on 9-11. ALL government buildings have a monthly fire inspection and all devices are tested for proper operation, The sprinkler systems go through a quarterly test. Fire alarms are serious business, IF anything is amiss a fire alarm system will notify the proper people the minute something goes wrong.

The Tai toy factory was a 4 story building made completely of NON Structural steel siding supported by UNINSULATED steel girders, It was not reinforced at all, again there were no fire suppresion systems,not even a fire extinguisher. That building is SO SO VERY different it is comparing slide rules to apples, about the only thing in common with the WTC towers is that it was a building. The building was full of cotton and polyester stuffing material and a 3rd section was for plastics. Way more fuel than the towers had.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 1, 2009)

What is "supported by steel girders" if not steel reinforcement? It is there for looks? Did you look at the photograph? That was pretty big steel.

I am aware that only the roof collapsed on McCormick. It was the roof. There wasn't a 40 story building on top of it. 

Funny that you believe concrete cores are less stable. Maybe you should make the folks who built and are building wtc 7 1 & 2. And all those steel buildings that didn't fall with them.



I'm sorry... I thought the argument was that normal fire doesn't make steel reinforced buildings collapse. Never has, never will... and it appears it has, and does. 

"Only this part failed" doesn't really apply to "can't fail". Bigger beams? Are you kidding me? Of course the beams were bigger, they had to hold up MUCH MORE WEIGHT. Does the material have a lower melting point because its smaller, supporting... a roof? You did look at the pictures right? They weren't toothpicks, and the roof didn't look that stressful.

It was steel, that doesn't fail, not fireproofing. It was "against the laws of physics". You lost all of this at the bridge... you just won't come around. Steel gets hot enough to fail in normal fire. Once you agree to this, we can move to fireproofing.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 1, 2009)

A normal fire does not cause steel to fail in 57 minutes. you can prove this to yourself, get a lighter and a girder, hold the lighter to the girder for 57 minutes and let me know if it melted. It didn't did it? Get a frickin flame thrower for all I care and just see if you can get that girder hot enough to fail in 57 minutes. There ya go, your argument has been disproven and it was all too easy. Some of your examples burned for 26 times as long as the WTC fires, making the WTC fires miniscule by comparison. Your argument and your evidence is only making your hole deeper WH.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> What is "supported by steel girders" if not steel reinforcement? It is there for looks? Did you look at the photograph? That was pretty big steel.
> 
> I am aware that only the roof collapsed on McCormick. It was the roof. There wasn't a 40 story building on top of it.
> 
> ...



i only read the first sentence so ill correct the flaw i found


steel reinforcement = rebar

steel girder = HUGE beam of steel


which one is stonger?

edit: upon further inspection it seems yet again your talking about something that we arent...


"I'm sorry... I thought the argument was that normal fire doesn't make steel reinforced buildings collapse."

no...


buildings that are made completely out of steel.... not steel reinforced concrete... there is a HUGE difference...

ill state my fact again....

not 1 STEEL (not steel reinforced) building has collapsed due to fire before OR since 9/11


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i only read the first sentence so ill correct the flaw i found
> 
> 
> steel reinforcement = rebar
> ...


Well... I was actually talking about ND's claim, which appears to be different than yours... but none the less, you can play too.

1. WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not made completely of steel. The claim to this point was actually that "steel structures do not collapse because of fire". The argument has been, for years now, that "normal fires" could not have been hot enough to cause failure in the steel because of the properties of the metal itself. I have demonstrated in several ways now that it could.

That is why ND is now clinging to asbestos. Because I have demonstrated that "normal" fires DO and HAVE caused structural failure in structural steel. That is the argument I had to first win (several times now) to move forward. 

The building fires which collapsed were supported by big assed steel beams, which failed due to "normal fire" alone.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 never failed due to normal fire before. That is an accurate statement. The buildings were unique, and drawing comparisons to other buildings when it suits you, and claiming that they "weren't like" them when it doesn't is a rat race we can run all day.

McCormick was a steel structure, thought to be "fireproof". It was not.

WTC 1&2 was a tube design. Steel in the middle, steel on the outside, with long girders connecting them in order to maximize office space. It is unique in this way. 

I have demonstrated that "normal fire" causes failure in steel. Every example I give will be different than WTC. Every example you give will be different than WTC. So it is important that we agree, if nothing else, on fundamentals... or we can have nothing to debate... only run in circles we think mimic the circumstances, on either side of them.

I defeated this argument with the bridge.

Normal fire causes structural failure to HUGE structural steel beams.

I did not address fireproofing, or sprinklers, or gravity, or fireproof passports. Just this one, simple, clearly exampled piece of information... and have been defending the obvious for 20 some pages now.

We must agree on fundamentals. I will ask 3 questions.

1. Did this happen as reported, yes or no?






2. What is the temperature of an open air gasoline fire?

3. If steel is "normal fire" proof, why do building codes mandate that they be coated with fireproofing?

I am not asking you to determine the validity of my questions. I am simply asking for them to be answered. Please answer these questions in your replies attacking me, my integrity, and my intelligence... just try to work them in.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> A normal fire does not cause steel to fail in 57 minutes. you can prove this to yourself, get a lighter and a girder, hold the lighter to the girder for 57 minutes and let me know if it melted. It didn't did it? Get a frickin flame thrower for all I care and just see if you can get that girder hot enough to fail in 57 minutes. There ya go, your argument has been disproven and it was all too easy. Some of your examples burned for 26 times as long as the WTC fires, making the WTC fires miniscule by comparison. Your argument and your evidence is only making your hole deeper WH.


I have shown that it happens in 20. You just don't "like" my evidence.


*please see last post. This one kicked over a new page. Thanks.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 2, 2009)

Lets have some fun today folks ... how about we look at all the bogus talking points of the deniers shall we?



what... huh? said:


> What is "supported by steel girders" if not steel reinforcement? It is there for looks? Did you look at the photograph? That was pretty big steel.


Notice folks how the denier continues to side step the issues? There are certain specification for certain types of buildings, but in this instance he pretends they are all the same. An if you compare the photo he provided with the photo of the steel of the WTC you will see there is no comparison ... yet he expects you to believe it is. This is a perfect example of how deniers will grab at straws and actually believe they have made a valid point.



what... huh? said:


> I am aware that only the roof collapsed on McCormick. It was the roof. There wasn't a 40 story building on top of it.


There doesn't have to be ... the McCormick building didn't have tons of structural steel like the WTC ... notice the denier only show examples of buildings and bridges  that are not design like the WTC ... he is completely unable to show any other skyscraper like the WTC towers to collapse in their own foot print at free fall speed. Why you ask? Because he can't. There aren't any and that's the point.



what... huh? said:


> Funny that you believe concrete cores are less stable. Maybe you should make the folks who built and are building wtc 7 1 & 2. And all those steel buildings that didn't fall with them.


Once again he try to pretend that those examples he presented are designed like the WTC but of course we all know they are not. Yet he continues to say it is evidence hoping that if he says it enough you will accept it as fact.



what... huh? said:


> I'm sorry... I thought the argument was that normal fire doesn't make steel reinforced buildings collapse. Never has, never will... and it appears it has, and does.


Since he can't refute the argument he changes it to suit him ... the real argument is a normal fire doesn't make a fireproofed structural steel skyscraper free fall into it's own footprint after burning less than 2 hours ... not without serious help ... that's the argument ... and notice folks at home ... the deniers can not produce a similar building like the WTC that collapse in their own foot print free fall style after burning less than 2 hours ... why you asks? Because it doesn't happen.



what... huh? said:


> "Only this part failed" doesn't really apply to "can't fail". Bigger beams? Are you kidding me? Of course the beams were bigger, they had to hold up MUCH MORE WEIGHT. Does the material have a lower melting point because its smaller, supporting... a roof?


Once again the denier tries to side step the real issue. He believe by doing this it will distract from the facts ... well at least in his mind it will ... 




what... huh? said:


> You did look at the pictures right? They weren't toothpicks, and the roof didn't look that stressful.


As No noted ... the deniers present a lot of evidence that supports 911 was an inside job ... you folks did see the pictures right? Yep ... nothing like the WTC ... yet they believe it supports their argument ... that's how delusional they can be.



what... huh? said:


> It was steel, that doesn't fail, not fireproofing. It was "against the laws of physics". You lost all of this at the bridge...


Another excellent example of how the denier will take information that has been thoroughly debunk because it's not a skyscraper and there was nothing unusual that happen with that fire ... yet he continues to present it as though it were valid evidence, in the hope that if he keeps doing it you will accept it as fact. He can't produce another skyscraper that collapsed in it's own footprint at free fall speed so he hopes you will believe the bridge is the same thing. Pretty sad really.



what... huh? said:


> you just won't come around. Steel gets hot enough to fail in normal fire. Once you agree to this, we can move to fireproofing.


Here again he tries to change the argument to suit his purpose ... the argument is a skyscraper does not collapse into its own foot print at free fall speed from a normal fire ... but he can't work from that angle so he make whether or not steel get hot enough to fail the issue ... when clearly it is not.




what... huh? said:


> 1. WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not made completely of steel. The claim to this point was actually that "steel structures do not collapse because of fire".


See folks ... the denier makes another desperate attempt to side track the issue. So he tries to knit pick his way around the facts. See how he works to change the argument? Which is that a skyscraper can not collapse at free fall speed in its own foot print due to fire. Case close. 



what... huh? said:


> The argument has been, for years now, that "normal fires" could not have been hot enough to cause failure in the steel because of the properties of the metal itself. I have demonstrated in several ways now that it could.


Notice here folk how he once again changes the argument to suit him ... then claims that he debunked the evidence? See how their minds work?



what... huh? said:


> That is why ND is now clinging to asbestos.


Here another trait of the deniers ... they take their own short comings and project them to their opponents ... when in fact he is the only one doing the clinging.



what... huh? said:


> Because I have demonstrated that "normal" fires DO and HAVE caused structural failure in structural steel.


Argument changed ... but not the real issue. Normal fires DO NOT cause skyscrapers to fall free fall style into their own foot print due to fire ... never have never will ... and the denier has yet to produce a skyscraper that has. Why do you ask? Because he can't. There never has been a skyscraper that has. Before or after 911. Case close.



what... huh? said:


> That is the argument I had to first win (several times now) to move forward.


Notice how delusional a denier is about winning an argument?



what... huh? said:


> The building fires which collapsed were supported by big assed steel beams, which failed due to "normal fire" alone.


Once again he note a structure that isn't a skyscraper and expect us to accept it as the same thing. Why do you asked? Because he can't produce a skyscraper that collapsed free fall style into its own foot print from a normal fire that's why.



what... huh? said:


> WTC 1 and WTC 2 never failed due to normal fire before. That is an accurate statement. The buildings were unique, and drawing comparisons to other buildings when it suits you, and claiming that they "weren't like" them when it doesn't is a rat race we can run all day.


Oh so now the building are "unique" while before it was alright to use any kind of steel structure to prove his bogus arguments. Here once again is an excellent example of the denier projecting his own short coming on to his opponents. It was alright to change the argument to suit him ... They actually believe that you will fall for their bullshit.




what... huh? said:


> WTC 1&2 was a tube design. Steel in the middle, steel on the outside, with long girders connecting them in order to maximize office space. It is unique in this way.


Says the guy who never work a day of construction in his life ... folks I'm sure most of you already know I have the manager of the WTC project stating that those buildings could not have collapse due to what happen. Yet this denier would have us believe that he know more about the buildings design than the people that actually build it. Yeah .... right... 



what... huh? said:


> I have demonstrated that "normal fire" causes failure in steel. Every example I give will be different than WTC. Every example you give will be different than WTC.


Here again he claims he has proven he's right with a bogus argument ... knowing he can only give a different example because what happen couldn't have without help.



what... huh? said:


> So it is important that we agree, if nothing else, on fundamentals... or we can have nothing to debate... only run in circles we think mimic the circumstances, on either side of them.


Here he demonstrates that it is he that has nothing to debate, but hope you all don't see that ... too bad for him we do.



what... huh? said:


> I defeated this argument with the bridge.


Once again he repeats his delusions about the bridge ... desperate to get you to accept it ... to bad we don't.



what... huh? said:


> Normal fire causes structural failure to HUGE structural steel beams.


Let keep repeating things like the denier shall we? Normal fires do not cause skyscrapers to collapse free fall style into their own foot print ... it just doesn't happen ... and that's what the fuss is all about.



what... huh? said:


> I did not address fireproofing, or sprinklers, or gravity, or fireproof passports. Just this one, simple, clearly exampled piece of information... and have been defending the obvious for 20 some pages now.


Folk he didn't address that because he was far too busy making up other bogus bullshit hoping you will buy it ... too bad it's not working.



what... huh? said:


> We must agree on fundamentals. I will ask 3 questions.
> 
> 1. Did this happen as reported, yes or no?


See how he goes back to side stepping the issue folks?




what... huh? said:


> 2. What is the temperature of an open air gasoline fire?


Gasoline was no where in the fire so why is he bringing it up? That's right ... side stepping again.



what... huh? said:


> 3. If steel is "normal fire" proof, why do building codes mandate that they be coated with fireproofing?


What makes him think steel is normal fire proof and what does this have to do with a skyscraper collapsing into its own foot print at free fall speed? That's right ... nothing.



what... huh? said:


> Please answer these questions in your reply attack of me, my integrity, and my intelligence... just try to work them in.


Been there done that ... it's not our fault that he want to wallow in his own denial ... that's his decision and problem not ours. Later boy.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

Again I will say, if anyone wishes to use anything grow has to offer, you will have to restate it for me. I do not read his posts... I see when I am scrolling through the miles of post to get to a new relevant one, my name is bold and repeated again and again and again... so I can see he is addressing me. I gave him every opportunity to be rational in his debates, he simply isn't... and will not accept when he is wrong. So again... if he asks something you find pertinent... please restate it... do not quote it. I will address any question to the best of my ability... and will do so with honesty. If I post something erronious, rest assured it is unintended. I do not argue for sake of it, and I hate eating them... so typically I have fact checked what I propose.

I have no agenda. I want the truth too. I know things you can't, so I may come across as holding some sort of dogma of faith in government. I do not, I am just privy to a small part in all of this you cannot be, which precludes a lot of the assumptions about that day. I know for a fact that 4 of the named hijackers made their connections in Boston... more than once. I can't give you that. I am not capable of the credibility required to even TRY to convince you. I would never disclose enough about myself to try and become so. I only tell you so you understand my position. It doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen, or be convinced of any OTHER fact.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Again I will say, if anyone wishes to use anything grow has to offer, you will have to restate it for me. I do not read his posts... I see when I am scrolling through the miles of post to get to a new relevant one, my name is bold and repeated again and again and again... so I can see he is addressing me. I gave him every opportunity to be rational in his debates, he simply isn't... and will not accept when he is wrong. So again... if he asks something you find pertinent... please restate it... do not quote it. I will address any question to the best of my ability... and will do so with honesty. If I post something erronious, rest assured it is unintended. I do not argue for sake of it, and I hate eating them... so typically I have fact checked what I propose.
> 
> I have no agenda. I want the truth too. I know things you can't, so I may come across as holding some sort of dogma of faith in government. I do not, I am just privy to a small part in all of this you cannot be, which precludes a lot of the assumptions about that day. I know for a fact that 4 of the named hijackers made their connections in Boston... more than once. I can't give you that. I am not capable of the credibility required to even TRY to convince you. I would never disclose enough about myself to try and become so. I only tell you so you understand my position. It doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen, or be convinced of any OTHER fact.


You can't win your argument with Grow, so you ignore him, classic. 

And now you are "privy" to information that we're not. LMAO, dude you're too funny.

Translation: I can't prove my point, so I'll just say I have inside information that I can't give you proof of. You're too much bro.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> You can't win your argument with Grow, so you ignore him, classic.
> 
> And now you are "privy" to information that we're not. LMAO, dude you're too funny.
> 
> Translation: I can't prove my point, so I'll just say I have inside information that I can't give you proof of. You're too much bro.


Grow will not stick to an argument, and when cornered, makes a joke, and continues to rant. It isn't that I "cant win my argument" with grow... I can't HAVE an argument with grow. It is a monologue.

I explained that what I know is not in any way verifiable, and as such not capable of introduction... and how that might affect my demeanor. I was pretty clear... you do not need to re-interpret anything.

I told you, if you have an argument of grows that you think bares merit, present it. He argues with me regardless of my not reading it... restate any rebuttals and I will address them with you.

I can win any argument. That doesn't make me right... and the whole diatribe was to give you (pl) assurance that I am not engaging in any "tactics" in order to "win". Funny that you call THAT a tactic.


So, other than wanting desperately to give Grow a blumpkin... did you have anything to contribute? An argument? A question? A rebuttal?




Anything?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Anything?


i have something... I have to find it. You and grow know more about this stuff than i ever will. (even though you're on opposite sides of the debate). So maybe you can explain this to me.

let me try to find a pic real quick.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> A normal fire does not cause steel to fail in 57 minutes. you can prove this to yourself, get a lighter and a girder, hold the lighter to the girder for 57 minutes and let me know if it melted. It didn't did it? Get a frickin flame thrower for all I care and just see if you can get that girder hot enough to fail in 57 minutes. There ya go, your argument has been disproven and it was all too easy. Some of your examples burned for 26 times as long as the WTC fires, making the WTC fires miniscule by comparison. Your argument and your evidence is only making your hole deeper WH.





GrowRebel said:


> Lets have some fun today folks ... how about we look at all the bogus talking points of the deniers shall we?
> 
> 
> Notice folks how the denier continues to side step the issues? There are certain specification for certain types of buildings, but in this instance he pretends they are all the same. An if you compare the photo he provided with the photo of the steel of the WTC you will see there is no comparison ... yet he expects you to believe it is. This is a perfect example of how deniers will grab at straws and actually believe they have made a valid point.
> ...





what... huh? said:


> Grow will not stick to an argument, and when cornered, makes a joke, and continues to rant. It isn't that I "cant win my argument" with grow... I can't HAVE an argument with grow. It is a monologue.
> 
> I explained that what I know is not in any way verifiable, and as such not capable of introduction... and how that might affect my demeanor. I was pretty clear... you do not need to re-interpret anything.
> 
> ...


 You are a lost cause.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 2, 2009)

The dude on the left is "suppose" to be Bin Laden in the confession tape, correct? 

That doesn't look anything like him in the second pic. If there is a logical answer to it... i'd like to know.







is that bin laden? doesn't even look like him


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Grow will not stick to an argument, and when cornered, makes a joke, and continues to rant. It isn't that I "cant win my argument" with grow... I can't HAVE an argument with grow. It is a monologue.
> 
> I explained that what I know is not in any way verifiable, and as such not capable of introduction... and how that might affect my demeanor. I was pretty clear... you do not need to re-interpret anything.
> 
> ...


I just find it funny that you think we're the crazy people, yet you come on here saying you have inside information that you can't disclose.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

I am totally willing to believe that tape is a forgery.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> I just find it funny that you think we're the crazy people, yet you come on here saying you have inside information that you can't disclose.


I have disclosed it. I cannot prove it and be anonymous.

My wife at the time was a pilot. She greeted them as they boarded several times... including on 9/11.

Again... none of that has any relevance to the things we are discussing. My ex-wifes flight routes have fuck all to do with the temperature of steels structural failure. It is again, anecdotal, second hand, and utterly inadmissible as evidence. I was trying to give only a small insight into why I might seem "fanatical" in my belief... and that it has nothing to do with government, kool-aid, or sheep. I know four made their connecting flights. That is it. That is all I know, that I can't prove... and for the umpteenth time... am not trying to. It is mentioned only as to better define what I am, and why I bother doing this.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 2, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> I just find it funny that you think we're the crazy people, yet you come on here saying you have inside information that you can't disclose.


basically, even after all the information we have posted, his mind is still in a box

he keeps talking about stuff thats unrelated to WTC

answer this smart guy

on 9/11 WHY did it take over an hour for any jets to be scrambled by northcom?

why did northcom stand down?

why did the government create Operation Northwoods?


Operation northwoods was a document created in 1952 (date could be wrong)

around the Cuban Missile Crisis

The document (found at the national archives)

details plans to hijack commercial airliners (via remote control)

crash them into high profile buildings, blame the attack on cuba, so the population would rally around an invasion of cuba



gee... what does that sound like? something familiar? 


look man, if you want to keep your head in a box, thats fine.

but you really should give up trying to refute all of this evidence

there is WAY too much evidence to deny...

what about bin laden being treated at an american hospital in cairo?

what about the entire bin laden family being escorted out of the U.S. after 9/11

Do you really think there has not been another "terrorist" attack because our homeland security is so good? yeah right..

what about the patriot act? the single biggest slaughter of the constitution since...well...ever

1. false flag attack 
2. blame an enemy
3. take away liberties

"he who trades liberty for security deserves neither"

and one more question for you...

Why, in the U.S. Army Sergeant Field manual, is there a section titled

"how to stage terror attacks"


?


----------



## Keenly (Aug 2, 2009)

The critical temperature for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1 % carbon (by mass) is approached, the critical temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C.

Jet fuel burns...

*Open air burning temperatures:* 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)


that is not even close to the failing point..

If the building collapsed due to fire, (which is impossible, but ill ignore that) 

it would have fallen over, not came crashing down on top of itself

Why did larry silverstien give the order to "pull it" and then the building came down?

Why, on the news...did walter kronkite say

"we now go live to one of the building collapsing"

*tv shows WTC*

5 or 6 seconds go by

THEN it collapses


how did he know it was going to collapse?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

You should start at about page 30.

I am not going to have the same arguments which have been conceded over and over again.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You should start at about page 30.
> 
> I am not going to have the same arguments which have been conceded over and over again.


so basically what your saying is, you cant explain operation northwoods, you cant explain why northcom stood down for over an hour

you cant explain why several prominent political officials were warned not to fly on 9/11

you cant explain the HUGE difference between steels compromising temperature and jet fuels burning temperature

hmmmmmm


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

I also go one thing at a time. You should start with your best... I am very meticulous.


If you are too lazy to read the arguments already hashed, and so desire an answer to your first question, you can google ATC SOP on NORDO. 

(standard operating procedure when a plane goes no-radio)


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> so basically what your saying is, you cant explain operation northwoods, you cant explain why northcom stood down for over an hour
> 
> you cant explain why several prominent political officials were warned not to fly on 9/11
> 
> ...



What I am saying is that I am battling many people, alone.

This one thread eats up so many hours of my week it is insane... I am not re-researching the proofs to questions I have already answered. If you can't put the time in, I sure as hell can't.

I have a wife and two year old who would like that attention. I have a business to run. Each point, rebuttal, or theory I put here takes hours to prepare. Hours.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I also go one thing at a time. You should start with your best... I am very meticulous.
> 
> 
> If you are too lazy to read the arguments already hashed, and so desire an answer to your first question, you can google ATC SOP on NORDO.
> ...



so your refusing to even acknowledge my points, a sign of a lost cause

i read your document.... no where in there does it say

"when commercial airliners are hijacked and U.S. citizens lives are in danger, wait 1 hour before scrambling jets"


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

He can't explain anything! thats the whole point, most of his evidence only furthers the truth movements claims. He just MUST believe that it was those guys his ex saw that did it. To do otherwise would be to admit he is wrong and has been for 8 years. he MUST cling to the "official" story or he will be seen by others as a "tin foil hat wearer" and ostracized by his fellow sheep.

Hey WH if you take a piece of steel lets say its 1/64" in diameter, you can get it to fail very easily with a regular household match. In fact it will glow white hot and gravity will cause it to fold over on itself. Does that prove that "regular" fire can cause steel to fail?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> What I am saying is that I am battling many people, alone.


That does make a huge difference. Not going to lie there. I've been on other forums stating my case that 9/11 was an inside job and i was out number 15 to 1. To make a fair debate sides should be even. However, us out numbering you is a good thing in the scheme of things. People aren't trusting the government. and thats a GOOD thing !


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 2, 2009)

What would be the point of blowing up tower 7??? Anyone have any idea?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> What I am saying is that I am battling many people, alone.
> 
> This one thread eats up so many hours of my week it is insane... I am not re-researching the proofs to questions I have already answered. If you can't put the time in, I sure as hell can't.
> 
> I have a wife and two year old who would like that attention. I have a business to run. Each point, rebuttal, or theory I put here takes hours to prepare. Hours.



It takes you hours? Holy shit bro, I don't spend more than 15 minutes on most of my rebuttals, and a great deal of them are off the cuff. Probably why I sound like such a uneducated buffoon half the time though. I have a Girlfriend who is 20 years younger than me that keeps me occupied and kids from prev relationships too. 

You are way too dedicated, i think I saw a few people who are on your side, although I have to admit you are outnumbered probably 8 to 1. Marijuana definitely opens peoples minds to new ways of thinking and IMO wakes the mind up to what is going on around them.

I do not think 911 was a precursor for instituting socialism.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 2, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> What would be the point of blowing up tower 7??? Anyone have any idea?


that question you should ask Larry


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> so your refusing to even acknowledge my points, a sign of a lost cause
> 
> i read your document.... no where in there does it say
> 
> "when commercial airliners are hijacked and U.S. citizens lives are in danger, wait 1 hour before scrambling jets"


It says to continue to try and make contact on old, current, and new channels until they land, at which time they will be given a citation, presuming there is no malfunction of the redundant systems.


I will happily address any question you want to ask... individually.

Pick a question, a single question... and THIS TIME I will address it, in full, even if I have before, to demonstrate my willingness to not hide from any question.

*edit... just saw you were being polite... you can kind of ignore this part now.
ND... I am about sick of the framing you keep applying to me. 

I do not hide from arguments.
I admit when I am wrong.
I have demonstrated several problems in your theories and beliefs, which you have since dropped.

This thread died (except for grow) because you quit... and still will not answer a single question on which EVERY PART of your theory rests.


ND that is a great point... and I am really glad you made it... I have been trying to for a long time. Temperature is different than specific energy. The volume of energy/temp/time determines the structural failure of a given substance/thickness.

A butane lighter flame is about 1400C at the hottest part, and no matter of time will ever make it melt any part of a steel beam. Please keep that in mind for the future.



So are you taking this opportunity to ignore the three simple questions I asked? 

Are you ready, yet, to admit that "normal fire" will cause structural failure of raw steel?

If not, can you please explain the bridge collapse in 20 min?


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 2, 2009)

I'll take that as a no. You know why? Because there is no reason!


----------



## pot scott (Aug 2, 2009)

It's not an inside job! It is the work of terrorists anyone who thinks otherwise, might as well be taliban shooting at our troops because they obviously aren't patriots!


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 2, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> What would be the point of blowing up tower 7??? Anyone have any idea?


 Insurance money...


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

They could have just pulled it, like 6. Just burned it, like 5.


Why wait 7 hours and demo it in front of the eyes of the world? It doesn't make sense.


Scott... I appreciate your enthusiasm... but you aren't helping.

True patriots question their government, as their patriotism is for their people... and the people they elect are meant to represent US. You are, what they accuse me of being.


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 2, 2009)

TreesOfLife said:


> Insurance money...


Thats just retarded on so many levels. So the twin towers were to gain support for war, or w/e the hell you nutjobs say it is for, but they threw in tower 7 just for the money...


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

ATC is one of the many large problems with the "inside job" theory for me. 

These guys push tin. The slightest mistake can have catastrophic results. When you have nightmares... what is it about? I am usually being chased, or drowning. These guys see planes colliding, people burning, and it being their fault. The men and women who squawk are a particular breed of people. Fast thinking, fast talking, and nervous as hell.


There is no way in hell ATC was complicit in this, and they would have to be. The north eastern seaboard is one of the heaviest observed areas in the world.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 2, 2009)

pot scott said:


> It's not an inside job! It is the work of terrorists anyone who thinks otherwise, might as well be taliban shooting at our troops because they obviously aren't patriots!


Inside job sir... 

[youtube]vxSNclWqn5U[/youtube]

[youtube]gCkDFQe2lQs[/youtube]


[youtube]6XjbCHFsZI0[/youtube]


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 2, 2009)

I will reveal my weakness...

and it is in 7.


and it does concern fireproofing.


I have no issues with how it fell, or a few key points failing caused such a collapse... or any of the other rhetoric. It is just a big fucking ???


I don't buy heat expansion damaging the footing. At all.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 2, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Thats just retarded on so many levels. So the twin towers were to gain support for war, or w/e the hell you nutjobs say it is for, but they threw in tower 7 just for the money...


 all the buildings that were insured went down.


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 2, 2009)

So you are saying the othe buildings were not insured? I highly doubt that.


----------



## pot scott (Aug 2, 2009)

TreesOfLife said:


> Inside job sir...
> 
> [youtube]vxSNclWqn5U[/youtube]
> 
> ...


those are some nice communist propaganda videos


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

LOL Communist propaganda? OMFG you don't have a clue about anything scott, you are truly one of the little minded people. I would ask you to point to just 1 single instance where they extol the virtues of the Communist ideals in any of the 3 videos. You can't because its certainly not communist nor is it propaganda. You can stop posting on this thread as both sides of the issue are clearly against you. Like WH said, dissent is the greatest form of Patriotism.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 2, 2009)

It's not a communist plot. It's just gullibility raising its ugly head...again. People are easily misled.....there was no conspiracy, other than from the terrorists, and isn't that what the conspiracy advocates want, to lessen the roles of the terrorists?

Sorry, it's ALL on Al Queda.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

I don't think that ATC was in on it, i mean they can't do anything anyway. they did notify the military right away that they had a plane that was possibly hijacked though. the military just sat on the info and was ordered to not do anything, and they happily complied because as far as they knew it was all just a exercise. Imagine how surprised they must have been when the learned that the exact same thing happened that they were training to stop. and it all happened right under their noses. 

Of course no one in the Military or Governemnt office was over held accountable for that day of massive failure from the beginning.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's not a communist plot. It's just gullibility raising its ugly head...again. People are easily misled.....there was no conspiracy, other than from the terrorists, and isn't that what the conspiracy advocates want, to lessen the roles of the terrorists?
> 
> Sorry, it's ALL on Al Queda.


Got any evidence or proof? or are you just gonna let What...Huh do all the dirty work?


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's not a communist plot. It's just gullibility raising its ugly head...again. People are easily misled.....there was no conspiracy, other than from the terrorists, and isn't that what the conspiracy advocates want, to lessen the roles of the terrorists?
> 
> Sorry, it's ALL on Al Queda.


 It was AL CIAda.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 2, 2009)

pot scott said:


> It's not an inside job! It is the work of terrorists anyone who thinks otherwise, might as well be taliban shooting at our troops because they obviously aren't patriots!



And your proof the government is telling the truth other than doing this
Well as far as I'm concern the deniers are the ones "shooting at our troops" ... they are there because of the false flag operation ... you would rather see them die for a lie ... than accept the truth ... how sad.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 2, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Thats just retarded on so many levels. So the twin towers were to gain support for war, or w/e the hell you nutjobs say it is for, but they threw in tower 7 just for the money...


How about you deniers learning to read the post before you make yourself look stupid ... I've already posted the reason if you are too much of an idiot to read or look at a video that's not our problem. Now go back to


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Got any evidence or proof? or are you just gonna let What...Huh do all the dirty work?



I'll go with probabilities. The probability of an Al Queda attack (of which they indeed claimed the credit) is very high. The probability of a well coordinated conspiracy with many organizations is not high.

It's pretty simple. Then again, I have faith in the US. I have little faith in complicated conspiracies being hidden and then pulled off.

I have great faith that there are ppl willing to take advantage of other ppl's prejudices. 

It is easy to spin up a conspiracy using hindsight.

It's even easier to be taken in by it.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'll go with probabilities. The probability of an Al Queda attack (of which they indeed claimed the credit) is very high. The probability of a well coordinated conspiracy with many organizations is not high.
> 
> It's pretty simple. Then again, I have faith in the US. I have little faith in complicated conspiracies being hidden and then pulled off.
> 
> ...



so your saying the odds are very high that a handful of Al-CIAda got onto a plane with box cutters,

hijacked airliners, crashed them into buildings, on the EXACT same day they were running a drill for the EXACT same incident?

thats much much more likely than the drill not being just a drill right?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

Remember the little example I gave about how if you take a small diameter steel wire and using a Bic lighter you can cause the wire to fail? Now try to do the same thing with a burning match, then try to do it with any amount of jet fuel. Guess what happens? It will not fail. You know why? the open burn temperature of wood is around 255C not anywhere close to soften steel, and the open flame temperature of petrol is 460C. What is the temp that steel will start to lose its structural properties? 650C. The butane flame burns at around 1900c. big difference, and most of you would have thought that the butane lighter was a "Normal" flame, I know WH sure thought so.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's not a communist plot. It's just gullibility raising its ugly head...again. People are easily misled.....there was no conspiracy, other than from the terrorists, and isn't that what the conspiracy advocates want, to lessen the roles of the terrorists?
> 
> Sorry, it's ALL on Al Queda.



Yep and 7 of the terrorists who slammed those planes into the WTC towers are still alive. At least according to official government sources. Some of them still live in the US also.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 2, 2009)

None of the terrorists who slammed into the WTC are alive. There were no survivors.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 2, 2009)

* Other Skyscraper Fires *

* Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse *





[SIZE=-1] The One Meridian Plaza fire [/SIZE] Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things. 
*The One Meridian Plaza Fire*

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3 [/SIZE] It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century". 
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. [SIZE=-1] 4 [/SIZE] Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.




[SIZE=-1] The First Interstate Bank fire [/SIZE] 
*The First Interstate Bank Fire*

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1]5 [/SIZE] 
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire: 
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. [SIZE=-1] 6 [/SIZE] 
*The 1 New York Plaza Fire*





[SIZE=-1] Close-up of the First Interstate Bank fire 
Photo: New York Board of Underwriters [/SIZE] 1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. [SIZE=-1]7 [/SIZE] 
*Caracas Tower Fire*

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters. 
Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. [SIZE=-1]8 [/SIZE] 
*The Windsor Building Fire*





[SIZE=-1] The Windsor Building fire [/SIZE] A more recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the fires described above, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires. 
[SIZE=-1] 9 [/SIZE] *The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire*





[SIZE=-1] The Hotel Mandarin Oriental blazes [/SIZE] The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed. 
It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, three skyscrapers were transformed into piles of rubble primarily as a consequence, supposedly, of fires -- fires spanning small fractions of each building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours. However such parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases -- one being that the Hotel Mandarin Oriental, designed by the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, had a full-height interior atrium, and thus had the hollowness that the 9-11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers. [SIZE=-1]10[/SIZE]
Perhaps the relevance of the Mandarin fire to the events of 9/11/2001 is more symbolic than forensic. 

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

[youtube]oVH5jm06pJY[/youtube]

I don't know if this stuff has been posted as I'm waaay too high to go through 90+ pages .

Now someone will argue, "Well, even if it was a military plane, they collapsed because of the fire!". 

Forget everything you've been spoon fed people, wake up. The majority of what you've been told is bullshit. The biggest deception of man.

You act like we want to force a religion upon you, not true. We just want you to see the truth, what you do with it is up to you.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> None of the terrorists who slammed into the WTC are alive. There were no survivors.


Here is the "Official" 911 report, with the names of every one of the People involved. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S00195.htm

Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers) _Both Alive_, Abdul Aziz al Omari _ Alive_, Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri _Alive_, Saeed al Ghamdi _Alive_, Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami _Alive_, Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi _Alive _(the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi). 

taken from http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html

So you tell me. How can 7 of them still be alive? I mean this is the "Official" list the Government has out there to convince us all it went down like they said it did. So I know what it must be! You know how they found the Passport of *Satam al-Suqami *in near pristine condition? ~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satam_al-Suqami ~~~ well whatever it was that made that passport withstand a burning building that collapses with nary a scratch, must have also blessed those 7 terrorists who somehow are still alive. Maybe it was God?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> and most of you would have thought that the butane lighter was a "Normal" flame, I know WH sure thought so.


Did not. I told YOU the temp. I get credit for squat around here. I even asked you to specifically remember all that for the future. This is all so futile.


No building has ever been like wtc 1&2. 

Find me a demolitions expert who can tell you how to do precision silent demo from the top down. The one I know says it is impossible.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 3, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> =
> A butane lighter flame is about 1400C at the hottest part, and no matter of time will ever make it melt any part of a steel beam. Please keep that in mind for the future.


Thank you for agreeing that even a "not Normal" fire will not do what you say it will. Now since Butane burns at 3 times the temperature as jet fuel, and Butane is not hot enough to bring down the towers then how in the hell would "Normal" fires do it?

I think by the end of the thread you will be a part of the truth movement too WH. I mean so far you have helped the cause more than hindered it.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 3, 2009)

So you keep saying. The pages demonstrate the headway I have made. I am and have been completely honest in this, which is less than I can say for many on your side. I have revealed my weaknesses, and personal feelings and motivations. You didn't understand my point. I think you miss a lot of my points, and try focusing on things you think are helping you, because you are not looking at the whole picture.

Ready to be disappointed?

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JaneFishler.shtml



I know right?

But wait... you might say... a match temp... 

Your temp is wrong. Sort of. So is mine. It is an issue of averages. The majority of the flame is burning at a specific temp. The yellow/red part. It is a small portion of a simple candle or lighter flame which burns so hot.

Your concept of "temperature" of fires is simple, and flawed. You should look at it in terms of specific energy, not temperature. Of megajoules, not degrees. Energy is what transforms the objects it is applied to, not "heat". In controlled environments, we have measures in simple terms. Astrophysicists do not measure in those terms. To understand exactly how that gas fire, which cannot reach temperatures to melt steel, melted the steel frame of the truck, you have to understand specific energy.

I don't really understand it, and can't really explain it without better getting it myself. I am very sick right now, and am going to have to abandon this for a few days. I will be back. ND, I think you are a hell of a dude. The rest of you can choke on your own vomit... except Trees... and op420... and anyone who isn't grow rebel.


Peace.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 3, 2009)

Last little bit I want to address. I don't NEED to believe this. I don't have issues with being wrong, my entire pursuit is to be right, sure... but truth exists, regardless of our perception of it. I, like you, want to know it.

I want to explain briefly a situation... pre 9/11.

Airline pilots were all very aware the only people who have, on many occasions, hijacked airplanes. You cannot help but be aware when they are on your airplane. My ex-wife had the uncanny ability to recall faces and names. I call it uncanny because I can't do it. She was the type of person who would meet you once, then see you after ten years, and know your wife, parents and childrens names.

She took note of middle eastern passengers. This group flew her route 3 times. She isn't wrong. Again... not offering it as evidence, explaining my position. I don't NEED to be right... I just am.


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

i wish i could load up a warehouse full of 9/11 conspiricy theorists and put about 10 tons of dynamite in there and blow it up, we'd all be better off. that's for sure.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 3, 2009)

So what do you call people who have no theories as to what happened but cannot buy the 911 commision report?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

It's really about taking the blame off Al Queda. All of the conspiracy "theories"  have been shown to be false, but a core section of folks WANT it to be true...like alien abduction. I put 9/11 "theorists" in the very same category.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 3, 2009)

I wish it were so black and white. I didn't start to question 911 because I thought ohh poor Al queda they are not guilty they should not be blamed for this.


----------



## natrone23 (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's really about taking the blame off Al Queda. All of the conspiracy "theories"  have been shown to be false, but a core section of folks WANT it to be true...like alien abduction. I put 9/11 "theorists" in the very same category.


Ok now apply that same logic to yourself and your "birther" theories.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

I am after real documents, not made up ones. I'm not hindsighting official documents, I only wish to SEE the documents. Obama's college admissions and ORIGINAL birth certificate are being hidden....big difference.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 3, 2009)

I don't buy all of the NIST report either. 7 is tough to wrap your head around.

I don't know what structural damage occurs when two of the largest buildings in the world collapse near a perfectly good building. I have to imagine the intensity of seismic activity is pretty high. Much less part of the collapse falling on the building itself. I expect it is pretty devastating. I don't know if it would "shake off" fireproofing. I don't have a strong enough argument or research to even address it at the moment.

I do not buy that fireproofed steel "expanded", cracking the footing. 


However my inability to figure out what happened in that one building does not leave only the alternative of controlled demolition. So many other aspects of that theory are utterly impossible, illogical, or incorrect. This argument is very difficult. Conspiracists, because of the very nature of the conspiracy, accept un-credible and disingenuous sources... while refusing to accept "credible" sources. 

There are also different kinds of conspiracists. There are the tin foil hat wearers, who believe everything is a conspiracy, and every failure in their lives is directly attributable to conspirators. They love Art Bell, and believe in EVERY conspiracy. Conspiracy is their go-to, and, frankly, are typically mentally unstable. Revelation has no effect on these people without a lot of therapy to get there. It is the reason Dr. Phil is a joke. Getting dysfunctional people on stage, and just telling them what is obviously wrong with them does not effect change. There is a reason psychologists/psychiatrists follow the proceedures they do to achieve a "breakthrough". No matter what evidence you provide to them, it will become twisted and unsettling in their heads, which rationalizes their behavior.

They are impossible to argue with.

Then you have rational people, who simply interpret evidence differently than others due to their experiences. Typically they have inquisitive minds and the fortitude to express their opinions. While they may not concede easily, they are logical, and an ultimate decision of fact or fiction is possible through the process of debate. They cannot help the company they keep. I certainly believe I am right, as do they. Anything is possible, and there is so much that is unknown, and may remain unknown forever... all we can do is try to come together on the preponderance of evidence... and we will likely part this discussion unchanged. It is of merit to try, on both sides, to find an ultimate truth.


ATC would have to know. The northeastern seaboard is the most heavily observed airspace in the world. You could not switch planes without SOMEONE catching it. 
Military personnel would have to know. Fighter jocks are not marines. Ground crews, readiness crews... these people train for this all day every day. ONE of them would have to say WTF? Norad station workers would have to know. I mean ffs these guys think the reporters knew ahead of time. Firefighters had to know... there is video of dozens of them saying 7 was gonna fall. The dead/not dead passengers can't keep this to themselves, from their families... so you have to assume that they were killed, by someone. NTSB would also have to be in on it, without a single investigator calling foul. 


I would also point out that nobody has addressed the buckling of wtc 1 and 2.

Riddle me that.

Just those conspirators alone... do you know what they all have in common?

Their lives are dedicated to saving American lives, and not a single person has ever come forward.


This is why I keep asking the same question that no conspiracist will answer.

How many people minimum would be required to pull this off?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

It only takes one you tube to start a conspiracy theory.....pulling off that conspiracy is near impossible however. Talking about it is easy though... getting noobs to believe it is even easier.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 3, 2009)

Unfortunately for you I was of the belief that something was amiss the very second the first tower disintegrated and fell. I watched every second of that day since I was on vacation and could devote the time.No you tube viewing necessary, no outside influence whatsoever. It does not take a huge leap of faith to figure out something is wrong when a building designed to take airplane hits ( All Skyscrapers are designed for that) destroys itself because of an airplane hit and the small ensuing fires.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 3, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I don't buy all of the NIST report either. 7 is tough to wrap your head around.
> 
> I don't know what structural damage occurs when two of the largest buildings in the world collapse near a perfectly good building. I have to imagine the intensity of seismic activity is pretty high. Much less part of the collapse falling on the building itself. I expect it is pretty devastating. I don't know if it would "shake off" fireproofing. I don't have a strong enough argument or research to even address it at the moment.
> 
> ...


Thats a really good post WH. Bravo man!

About the only thing I could nit pick was your statement that none of the people who were out their rescuing folks ever came forward . Well you would be wrong there, LOTS of people who were their in official capacities have come forward. They have lost their jobs, had their lives threatened, their families threatened and whenever possible have been discredited by the "Official" sources as wackos, or tin foil hatters. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of folks who were there that day and are asking questions.

I could be totally wrong about 911, maybe 19 dumb ass foreigners from Saudi and Packi who could not fly a plane at all according to the instructors who taught them actually DID Hijack the planes with plastic knives/box cutters and then flew them into the towers. And maybe the military WHO 24/7 365 days a year has a Jet waiting on standby that can be in the air in just 7 minutes. And MAYBE because they were having an exercise that dealt with hijacked planes flying into buildings they all just thought it was the exercise and not real. AND JUST MAYBE those 500C fires really did some how melt all that steel at once and then those floors pancaked and then disintegrated into dust and all that metal just failed all at once. Then you have buildings right next to the towers that while sustaining major major damage did not fall, but a building on a different block of the city did all of a sudden fall and it exhibited the least damage of all the buildings in the area. AND maybe Bush really did see the first plane crash into the towers, I mean he has stated that he saw it on TV, when we all know that isn't true. Sure that maybe all happened like they said it did, but there is so much evidence against those facts that I just can't believe it. I saw it happen all live and even then I highly doubted it.


ATC will try radio contacting a plane that loses its transponder while in flight. this is not deemed a serious emergency unless 2 things happen. 1..the plane does not answer to radio calls and 2...The plane makes a severe heading change and goes completely off the flight path. The seriousness of #2 is especially important as there are a SHIT load of planes in the sky on the east coast and a plane that has lost its transponder and cannot be contacted and has changed course puts thousands of lives at risk, mid air collision is a garanteed death sentence for all. ATC would definitely not consider this a "Ordinary" occurance as the only times it ever happens is when the plane has crashed or has been Hi Jacked. either way lives are at risk and it is taken very seriously.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 3, 2009)

The minimum amount of people for any conspiracy is 2, so we will just go with that for an answer for now. It would take far far too long to come up with an actual good estimate, besides, it would not prove a single thing either way.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 3, 2009)

Try not to vet my proofs before I get there...


So you believe it is feasible that 2 human beings planned, planted ordinance, remote controlled airplanes, and detonated the buildings. I know it is a hard question. I have dedicated a lot of time to really hard questions. Give me an hour. Spend an hour figuring out how many people had to know... at minimum.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

I think you all need to ask yourselves, ..."Why don't I believe a well trained terrorist cell could fly planes into towers?"


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's really about taking the blame off Al Queda. All of the conspiracy "theories"  have been shown to be false, but a core section of folks WANT it to be true...like alien abduction. I put 9/11 "theorists" in the very same category.


woah, woah, woah, now ur gettin out of hand, i do believe in alien abductions. puttin 9/11 conspiracies in the same category with factual info makes no sense, one is real and one isn't!And anyone who can dismiss thousands upon thousands of ppl who don't know each other with such similar accounts of abductions is extremely ignorant, thats like saying we are the only life in the universe. just stupid!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

It's not factual if it is pulled out of context and twisted into a new reality. That's basically what the 9/11 conspiracy is. Of course what it is FIRST, is a money maker for the authors... ka-CHING!!!$$$


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I think you all need to ask yourselves, ..."Why don't I believe a well trained terrorist cell could fly planes into towers?"


maybe you should ask yourself

why do i accept everything the government is spoonfeeding me

why are we in the middle east 8 years later

why is there over 1 million of the "opposition" dead

there are so many questions even the victims families have, the government refuses to answer...


so WHY

why does the gov. refuse to answer our questions

why do they completely disagree with a new 9/11 investigation (the first one was a joke) when all of the victims families ask for one?

we just want our questions answered

when we get answers like "that never happened" or "i cant comment"

doesnt that sound a little fishy to you


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's not factual if it is pulled out of context and twisted into a new reality. That's basically what the 9/11 conspiracy is. Of course what it is FIRST, is a money maker for the authors... ka-CHING!!!$$$


but who's to say all those hundreds of thousands of ppl across the world twisted there account of alien abduction into a new reality? that's nonsense, but ur right about those conspiracies makin $$$ for evil ppl who are obviously communist radicals.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

it has just dawned on me that you people have done 0 research into the events of 9/11

other than the news 


thats a truly reliable source of information yes sir


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

why dont we talk about how thousands of first responders are dead or dying from respitory diseases from the dust of the towers


the same dust that was deemed safe, on television, by the chairman of the EPA


now, with all of these sick and dying heroes

the government REFUSES to compensate their healthcare costs...

when it was THEIR fault they have the problems, deeming an area safe when it was not


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

pot scott said:


> but who's to say all those hundreds of thousands of ppl across the world twisted there account of alien abduction into a new reality? that's nonsense, but ur right about those conspiracies makin $$$ for evil ppl who are obviously communist radicals.


No, I'm saying the 9/11 conspiracy takes the facts and then twists them. 

With alien abductions, there just aren't any facts to twist, but the methodology is the same. Prey upon disgruntled people who WANT to disbelieve (anything). These authors are taking it to the bank and the lapdogs who love this stuff get duped just like TV churchers do...

Take any big event, see if there is a large enough segment of folks who don't like the reality of the event, ...and simply FILL the VOID with what they want to hear.... simple...and very profitable...


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

the problem is... there are many many a documentary out there on 9/11

but you people refuse to watch this type of media....

so we cant source it


you guys on the otherhand have almost nothing to defend your case other than what the news said and when government officials said


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

Unfortunately the word "documentary" has been sullied by the likes of Michael Moore, who couldn't produce a real documentary to save his life.

What you mean to say is there are many ppl out there with editing software and a vidcam who can put together through out of context copy/pasting and editing, a movie. 

Hardly a documentary, and hardly accurate. They don't intend to be accurate, since they don't think you will really run down their sources. I have run down many of the sources and found them corrupted. No thanks.... I'll just believe that a terrorist cell can attack an unprepared nation....any nation.


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 3, 2009)

Keenly said:


> it has just dawned on me that you people have done 0 research into the events of 9/11
> 
> other than the news
> 
> ...


Well, since your CN's consider watching movies to be research, I've done plenty of research. I watched both Zeitgeists and Loose Change. I am just not gullible enough to believe them. Loose change for example, was written by some dumb kid in his basement. He started writing it as a work of fiction, and then half way through he realized someone might actually fall for it, and started marketing it as a documentary.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Unfortunately the word "documentary" has been sullied by the likes of Michael Moore, who couldn't produce a real documentary to save his life.
> 
> What you mean to say is there are many ppl out there with editing software and a vidcam who can put together through out of context copy/pasting and editing, a movie.
> 
> Hardly a documentary, and hardly accurate. They don't intend to be accurate, since they don't think you will really run down their sources. I have run down many of the sources and found them corrupted. No thanks.... I'll just believe that a terrorist cell can attack an unprepared nation....any nation.


Cracka please. I know you're smarter than that. We were prepared.. we just let it happen.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 3, 2009)

Keenly said:


> it has just dawned on me that you people have done 0 research into the events of 9/11
> 
> other than the news
> 
> ...


 I have watched many hours of these doc's. I don't buy half the shit on them either but they do bring up alot of other points. Kinda like a connect the dots. sometimes you need not draw the line to see the image.

there are doc's with the victims families, firemen Atc all of the above that WHAT HUH? was asking about but they are just that. Most of em hurt the truth movment too... I take a small percentage of each one as truth or likely or plausable so after dozens of hours i'm left with 1 or two worth of solid info.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 3, 2009)

I don't know what you people want. Grow and Drama "debunked" every "debunker"... 

Look who benefited from this?


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Well, since your CN's consider watching movies to be research, I've done plenty of research. I watched both Zeitgeists and Loose Change. I am just not gullible enough to believe them. Loose change for example, was written by some dumb kid in his basement. He started writing it as a work of fiction, and then half way through he realized someone might actually fall for it, and started marketing it as a documentary.


Jason Bermas had many friends lost on 9/11 ...

the man is also very smart

it was not started as fiction, and apparently you know nothing about Bermas

your entire post was inaccurate 


and zeitgeist? or however you spell it

that should never be mentioned by anyone


what im talking about is

9/11 and the road to tyranny

fabled enemies

terror storm

the 9/11 chronichles


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No, I'm saying the 9/11 conspiracy takes the facts and then twists them.
> 
> With alien abductions, there just aren't any facts to twist, but the methodology is the same. Prey upon disgruntled people who WANT to disbelieve (anything). These authors are taking it to the bank and the lapdogs who love this stuff get duped just like TV churchers do...
> 
> Take any big event, see if there is a large enough segment of folks who don't like the reality of the event, ...and simply FILL the VOID with what they want to hear.... simple...and very profitable...



Hasn't cost me a dime. Did keep me from joining the military tho... that's worth something.


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 3, 2009)

Theyre all the same. And I got the fact that loose change was started as a work of fiction from the history channel. They did a whole special on 9/11, and that guy and Alex Jones were both in it.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 3, 2009)

Keenly said:


> the problem is... there are many many a documentary out there on 9/11
> 
> but you people refuse to watch this type of media....
> 
> ...


Zietgiest has all the major network people saying the towers were "demolished", but they won't watch or believe it. If you haven't seen it people, check Google video.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Theyre all the same. And I got the fact that loose change was started as a work of fiction from the history channel. They did a whole special on 9/11, and that guy and Alex Jones were both in it.


so your believing what you heard on the history channel talking about 9/11? 

sorry, but that information is incorrect


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 3, 2009)

Wow, you haven't even seen it and already you know it is incorrect. Pretty impressive. Unlike all these internet vidoes, THC is accountable for what they say.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 3, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Wow, you haven't even seen it and already you know it is incorrect. Pretty impressive. Unlike all these internet vidoes, THC is accountable for what they say.


 Not really they said the "russians and chinese" were the ones people thought used weather weapons for katrina. HAARP...BUSH...FEMA...BLACKWATER...


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 3, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Wow, you haven't even seen it and already you know it is incorrect. Pretty impressive. Unlike all these internet vidoes, THC is accountable for what they say.


I can't even get my eyes off the tits on your Photoshopped Palin Avatar to read your posts anymore.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 3, 2009)

I was just staring at them in another thread.


That's funny.


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 3, 2009)

LOL, glad you guys like it


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 3, 2009)

Okay kids ... time for me to bash the deniers with the undeniable facts once again.



pot scott said:


> i wish i could load up a warehouse full of 9/11 conspiricy theorists and put about 10 tons of dynamite in there and blow it up, we'd all be better off. that's for sure.


... and I wish I could give all you deniers a light bulb lock you in a room, and watch you all slowly died after months of trying to get it screwed in ... we won't be better off because your numbers are so small it won't make any difference if you are around or not.



CrackerJax said:


> It's really about taking the blame off Al Queda.


You mean the fake Al Qaeda the CIA made up? I put up the evidence of that way back on page 17 post #161, but of course you never let facts stand in your way before ... I doubt that you will now.




CrackerJax said:


> All of the conspiracy "theories" have been shown to be false


You are one of the few people that bought that bullshit at debunk 911 ... but it has been debunked so you have nothing but government lies. But for the record name a couple of the conspiracy "theories" that have been shown to be false ... we would love to hear, and I'm sure WH would love the help.




CrackerJax said:


> but a core section of folks WANT it to be true...like alien abduction. I put 9/11 "theorists" in the very same category.


No ... there is a section of folks that see and accept the evidence ... unlike you that doesn't want it to be true ... that is why you completely ignore the facts. And I can put your birthers in the same category as the disgruntle white folks section. 



CrackerJax said:


> It only takes one you tube to start a conspiracy theory.....pulling off that conspiracy is near impossible however.


And it only take one fauxnews report to convince you of anything ... and they didn't pull it off ... if they had I wouldn't be having this thread. It's not our fault you need a cane and seeing eye dog.




CrackerJax said:


> Talking about it is easy though... getting noobs to believe it is even easier.


Like you birthers?



CrackerJax said:


> I think you all need to ask yourselves, ..."Why don't I believe a well trained terrorist cell could fly planes into towers?"


Well let see ... GrowRebel why don't you believe a well trained terrorist cell could fly planes into towers?
Well I'll tell you GrowRebel ... I don't have a problem with planes hitting the towers ... I do have a problem with how these well trained terrorist manage to get NORAD to stand down ... I have a problem with how could well train terriorst get past secuirty at the WTC to plant bombs to bring down the towers before hand. I also wonder why the man responsible for US secruity who didn't fire a shot was promoted a week later instead of fired ... plus there is a lot of other questions I have that the government refuses to answer ... that's why I don't believe a well train terrorist cell was behind 911 ... you have a problem with that GrowRebel? ... No ... GrowRebel ... no problem with that at all ...thank you for your time.
 



CrackerJax said:


> No, I'm saying the 9/11 conspiracy takes the facts and then twists them.


I can't wait to hear what facts we are taking and twisting ... I'm sure there are a lot of them so you will have no problems posting it ... right? 




CrackerJax said:


> Prey upon disgruntled people who WANT to disbelieve (anything).


Isn't that like you wanting to believe the government bullshit theory?




CrackerJax said:


> These authors are taking it to the bank and the lapdogs who love this stuff get duped just like TV churchers do...


I haven't paid a dime to gain access to any of the information posted or any of the documentaries I've viewed ... any one else pay anything for 911 documentaries or info? Thought not ... so you like our dear friend WH are blowing it out your ass ... but you have been doing that long before WH.




CrackerJax said:


> Take any big event, see if there is a large enough segment of folks who don't like the reality of the event, ...and simply FILL the VOID with what they want to hear.... simple...and very profitable...


Like you when you disregard the obvious ... and who's making money on this? Again ... any one buy a dvd or anything that is making a 911 reporter rich?



CrackerJax said:


> Unfortunately the word "documentary" has been sullied by the likes of Michael Moore, who couldn't produce a real documentary to save his life.


Only people with your bushwhacked mentality believe that "documentary" have been "sullied" by Moore.




CrackerJax said:


> What you mean to say is there are many ppl out there with editing software and a vidcam who can put together through out of context copy/pasting and editing, a movie.


Oh have they really? We can't wait to see your evidence of that. We will wait with bated breath for your post on this.




CrackerJax said:


> Hardly a documentary, and hardly accurate.


And what was it that wasn't accurate ... you fail to mention that throughout your post ... I wonder why?




CrackerJax said:


> They don't intend to be accurate, since they don't think you will really run down their sources.


And of course you did ... so you will have NO trouble posting your sources that prove they are inaccurate ... we can't wait to see that too. Boy we are going to have a lot of interesting stuff to look at when you are done aren't we ... 




CrackerJax said:


> I have run down many of the sources and found them corrupted.


So lets see these sources you have that show them as being corrupted ... since you already have the information you will have no problem posting it for us .... right?




CrackerJax said:


> No thanks.... I'll just believe that a terrorist cell can attack an unprepared nation....any nation.


That's why the elite loves dummies like you ... smart enough to work for them ... but dumb enough not to question, match made in heaven.



hom36rown said:


> Well, since your CN's consider watching movies to be research, I've done plenty of research. I watched both Zeitgeists and Loose Change. I am just not gullible enough to believe them. Loose change for example, was written by some dumb kid in his basement. He started writing it as a work of fiction, and then half way through he realized someone might actually fall for it, and started marketing it as a documentary.


There is more out there that gives facts on 911 other than documentaries ... but where is your source and link proving your statement ... you really don't expect us to take you at your word do you .... well ... we won't.




hom36rown said:


> Theyre all the same. And I got the fact that loose change was started as a work of fiction from the history channel. They did a whole special on 9/11, and that guy and Alex Jones were both in it.


Oh great you already got the fact so you will have no problems posting the link to it...can't wait!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

Nice opinion...but that's all they are. No one with any credibility backs your story. where's all the front page headlines? It's a backwater story and a code for "nutjobs"


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Nice opinion...but that's all they are. No one with any credibility backs your story. where's all the front page headlines? It's a backwater story and a code for "nutjobs"


Once again, you can't prove any of Grow's posts wrong. We suppose to just take your word for it?

Many Scientists and Engineers back the movement. And you know the government runs the media man... Com'on now.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

What's to prove wrong? he simply doesn't believe the reports. we are at a standstill. 

Most of the 9/11 conspiracy has been debunked elsewhere. I haven't the desire to c/p all that stuff. I have simply digested both sides and come to the conclusion that terrorists did in fact fly into our towers. Simple... The other belief is quite complicated and convoluted. I'll go with Occum's razor...


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> What's to prove wrong? he simply doesn't believe the reports. we are at a standstill.
> 
> Most of the 9/11 conspiracy has been debunked elsewhere. I haven't the desire to c/p all that stuff. I have simply digested both sides and come to the conclusion that terrorists did in fact fly into our towers. Simple... The other belief is quite complicated and convoluted. I'll go with Occum's razor...


http://www.ae911truth.org/ 


you want to explain that?

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth


hmm.... architects... people who design buildings..

and engineers...people who build buildings

are for 9/11 truth

why is that?


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

grow rebel, why don't you just go to cuba with your radical communist friends? I'm sure u and castro would be great buddies. Shit, or u could go to venezuela and hang out with sean penn and hugo chavez. or better yet, go join al qaida and fight for the terrorists, u obviosly are one, or deeply admire them. just do the world a favor and cease to exist. And it's called FOX news bitch! I'm not some hardcore republican, i'm a libritarian. scum bags like u are a bad example to america. ur a typical radical leftist who is so brain washed and demented that ur brain can't function like a normal human being. ppl like u need to be forced into re-education camps and brutally forced to change ur radical pro communist, pro terrorist, pro illegal alien thoughts. and i don't care about ur stupid ass bull shit supposed evidence, ur a traitor to america, as far as i'm concerned u don't deserve freedom, u need to be exported to cuba bitch.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 3, 2009)

I can find just as many to say it is nonsense.... so what? Plenty of ppl think man cause global warming without a shred of evidence. Why would this be any different?


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I can find just as many to say it is nonsense.... so what? Plenty of ppl think man cause global warming without a shred of evidence. Why would this be any different?


ha, any idiot who believes in global warming is a dumbass. the temps. have been dropping for the past ten years! Scientists have proved it! al gore jus preaches this bull shit to make a bunch of money, but what else is new with communists?


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

pot scott said:


> grow rebel, why don't you just go to cuba with your radical communist friends? I'm sure u and castro would be great buddies. Shit, or u could go to venezuela and hang out with sean penn and hugo chavez. or better yet, go join al qaida and fight for the terrorists, u obviosly are one, or deeply admire them. just do the world a favor and cease to exist. And it's called FOX news bitch! I'm not some hardcore republican, i'm a libritarian. scum bags like u are a bad example to america. ur a typical radical leftist who is so brain washed and demented that ur brain can't function like a normal human being. ppl like u need to be forced into re-education camps and brutally forced to change ur radical pro communist, pro terrorist, pro illegal alien thoughts. and i don't care about ur stupid ass bull shit supposed evidence, ur a traitor to america, as far as i'm concerned u don't deserve freedom, u need to be exported to cuba bitch.



so let me get this straight

you want to take everyone who disagrees with you

put them in a camp

and "brutally force" them to think your way
you sir, sound like the terrorist here

"scum bag. dont deserve freedom. ur brain can't function like a normal human being."

this is hardcore eugenicist thinking.... your not for equality thats for sure


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

Keenly said:


> so let me get this straight
> 
> you want to take everyone who disagrees with you
> 
> ...


these ppl are so brainwashed that they are insane! brutal force is the only way to get them to change! pieces of scum like u, grow rebel, and sandmonkey all deserve to be tied up in the middle of a battle field in afghanistan while our soldiers happily shoot at you .


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 3, 2009)

pot scott said:


> grow rebel, why don't you just go to cuba with your radical communist friends? I'm sure u and castro would be great buddies. Shit, or u could go to venezuela and hang out with sean penn and hugo chavez. or better yet, go join al qaida and fight for the terrorists, u obviosly are one, or deeply admire them. just do the world a favor and cease to exist. And it's called FOX news bitch! I'm not some hardcore republican, i'm a libritarian. scum bags like u are a bad example to america. ur a typical radical leftist who is so brain washed and demented that ur brain can't function like a normal human being. ppl like u need to be forced into re-education camps and brutally forced to change ur radical pro communist, pro terrorist, pro illegal alien thoughts. and i don't care about ur stupid ass bull shit supposed evidence, ur a traitor to america, as far as i'm concerned u don't deserve freedom, u need to be exported to cuba bitch.


Romans 13 they own you. The government is of the Lord... Skip to 7:10 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

[youtube]lmlR17Y8OQM[/youtube]


----------



## Keenly (Aug 3, 2009)

pot scott said:


> these ppl are so brainwashed that they are insane! brutal force is the only way to get them to change! pieces of scum like u, grow rebel, and sandmonkey all deserve to be tied up in the middle of a battle field in afghanistan while our soldiers happily shoot at you .



your last 3 posts are the single most un-american words i have ever heard in my entire life

and you call ME the terrorist 

i LOL at your utter hypocrisy


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

Keenly said:


> your last 3 posts are the single most un-american words i have ever heard in my entire life
> 
> and you call ME the terrorist
> 
> i LOL at your utter hypocrisy


i stand behind everything i say, and when barrack osama hussein abdul achmed abdul jabbar muhammed obama starts taking away our constitiutional rights and the armed revolution begins, i hope ya'll get destroyed.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I can find just as many to say it is nonsense.... so what? Plenty of ppl think man cause global warming without a shred of evidence. Why would this be any different?


There is no way you are going to pull a steel building down at freefall speed in its own footprint by using cables.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter. 
Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. 

Excerpts from Mark Roberts excellent piece "*World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 &#8220;Truth Movement&#8221;*
Yes, that worker certainly does say they&#8217;re getting ready to &#8220;pull&#8221; building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:
&#8220;We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.&#8221; 
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a &#8220;controlled&#8221; way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents &#8211; the clip that&#8217;s shown on all the conspiracist websites &#8211;ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where&#8217;s the money shot? Why&#8217;d they cut it there?

​


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 3, 2009)

pot scott said:


> i stand behind everything i say, and when barrack osama hussein abdul achmed abdul jabbar muhammed obama starts taking away our constitiutional rights and the armed revolution begins, i hope ya'll get destroyed.


Wow. The world will be better without you. You are the root of evil in this world - poisonous anti-intellectualism. You are a typecasting bigot. You hinder all growth and stymie all progress. You are ancient. Go away.


----------



## pot scott (Aug 3, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> Wow. The world will be better without you. You are the root of evil in this world - poisonous anti-intellectualism. You are a typecasting bigot. You hinder all growth and stymie all progress. You are ancient. Go away.


my previous statement now includes u, congratulations.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 3, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> Wow. The world will be better without you. You are the root of evil in this world - poisonous anti-intellectualism. You are a typecasting bigot. You hinder all growth and stymie all progress. You are ancient. Go away.


Our "leaders" have secret ceremonies crucifying a child effigy. Our "leaders" create wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people for wealth. Our "leaders" allow us to work and pay off a never ending debt to the federal reserve. 

And you think he is evil for opposing this?

Look in the mirror.


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 3, 2009)

pot scott said:


> my previous statement now includes u, congratulations.


At least I'm not a racist biggot. Typecasting everyone with the name Hussein as a typical middle eastern terrorist should be punishable by death.


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 3, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> Our "leaders" have secret ceremonies crucifying a child effigy. Our "leaders" create wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people for wealth. Our "leaders" allow us to work and pay off a never ending debt to the federal reserve.
> 
> And you think he is evil for opposing this?
> 
> Look in the mirror.


I told him to go away because he's a racist. It defies all logic to attach negative connotations to a whole group of people because of irrational hatred towards them by one person. Are you justifying this?


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 3, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> At least I'm not a racist biggot. Typecasting everyone with the name Hussein as a typical middle eastern terrorist should be punishable by death.


So, we see your real agenda for what it is. Thank you for finally exposing yourself.


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 3, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> So, we see your real agenda for what it is. Thank you for finally exposing yourself.


What!? What the hell is with all these ambiguous statements recently? Are you saying I'm not allowed to call someone who made a slur towards middle-easterners a racist biggot? Because it fits the damn definition.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 3, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> Typecasting everyone with the name Hussein as a typical middle eastern terrorist should be punishable by death.


His views were shaped by this government and you believe he should die for it?

Look at how much anti-muslim propaganda was shoved down the American peoples throats after 9/11.

You are a N.W.O. pawn, and your views are clearly showing this. Killing people for the views their government created is disturbing to say the least.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 3, 2009)

pot scott said:


> grow rebel, why don't you just go to cuba with your radical communist friends? I'm sure u and castro would be great buddies. Shit, or u could go to venezuela and hang out with sean penn and hugo chavez. or better yet, go join al qaida and fight for the terrorists, u obviosly are one, or deeply admire them. just do the world a favor and cease to exist. And it's called FOX news bitch! I'm not some hardcore republican, i'm a libritarian. scum bags like u are a bad example to america. ur a typical radical leftist who is so brain washed and demented that ur brain can't function like a normal human being. ppl like u need to be forced into re-education camps and brutally forced to change ur radical pro communist, pro terrorist, pro illegal alien thoughts. and i don't care about ur stupid ass bull shit supposed evidence, ur a traitor to america, as far as i'm concerned u don't deserve freedom, u need to be exported to cuba bitch.


WOW !! just Fucking WOW! Dude you are taking this WAY WAY TO PERSONALLY. This is a forum, a bastion of first amendment rights if their ever was one!! You can't go around inciting violence on others just because they don't share your viewpoint! And whats with everyone who doesn't believe what you do as being communist, pro terrorist, and pro Illegal alien? I mean C'Mon dude you can't really believe that shit do you? Just because someone believes that there is more to 911 than some dudes with plastic knives who took over the country for 8 years does not make them communist, pro illegal alien, nor pro terrorist. I mean where in ANY post of theirs do they extol the virtuies of any of this? Where? Prove one communist thing any of these fine folks have posted! You can't because you are just trying to discredit them with lies. It won't work, you have to come out here and argue your point, ad hominum attacks are very easily seen for what they are in this well educated crowd.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 3, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> Our "leaders" have secret ceremonies crucifying a child effigy. Our "leaders" create wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people for wealth. Our "leaders" allow us to work and pay off a never ending debt to the federal reserve.
> 
> And you think he is evil for opposing this?
> 
> Look in the mirror.



I think you missed the majority of Pot Scott's posts, otherwise you would not be haranguing jrh about this. How else would you describe him? Perhaps he is right, and all "truthers" are Communists and are right now trying to take over the whole world and force everyone to turn to Marxism. Perhaps all "truthers" also need to be taken to a re education camp and forced to believe that a dude in a cave planned an attack that totally took the most powerful nation the world has ever known by total and complete surprise for a period of almost 3 hours. And if thiose "Truthers" aren't quite up to being re educated well then they need to be killed of course, I mean thats what Pol Pot woul;d do right? And he must be a hero of Pot Scott's , they have the same ideals.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 4, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I think you missed the majority of Pot Scott's posts, otherwise you would not be haranguing jrh about this. How else would you describe him? Perhaps he is right, and all "truthers" are Communists and are right now trying to take over the whole world and force everyone to turn to Marxism. Perhaps all "truthers" also need to be taken to a re education camp and forced to believe that a dude in a cave planned an attack that totally took the most powerful nation the world has ever known by total and complete surprise for a period of almost 3 hours. And if thiose "Truthers" aren't quite up to being re educated well then they need to be killed of course, I mean thats what Pol Pot woul;d do right? And he must be a hero of Pot Scott's , they have the same ideals.


No bro, I don't think you're radical and I agree with a lot of your views.

I just don't think someone should be killed for saying what "he" thinks.

We get too sucked into using generalizations against people and hating them for their beliefs. How many people in America hated Muslim's before 9/11? Look at how programed we are to hate.

Hating back is just falling for it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Nice opinion...but that's all they are. No one with any credibility backs your story. where's all the front page headlines? It's a backwater story and a code for "nutjobs"


There only opinions in your delusional mind for the rest of us that can read and see they are fact ... oh right structural engineers and scientist have no credibility, but you who merely blow shit out his ass is? Get real. 
Folks at home you all know this jackass from my other thread... he's real good at denying the obvious. He can't refuted the facts so like all bushwhacks pretend the evidence simply doesn't exist. They are consistent with this in the hopes of convincing people through mindless repetition. Will they ever learn it doesn't work? NO. 



CrackerJax said:


> What's to prove wrong? he simply doesn't believe the reports. we are at a standstill.


Of course there is plenty, but like a good bushwhacked you simply ignore the facts ... I enjoy you doing it myself ... it makes it really easy to show how stupid you are. Thank you.



CrackerJax said:


> Most of the 9/11 conspiracy has been debunked elsewhere.


Remember folks at home ... dummy made this statement in his last post. I ask him to show what had been debunked ... notice he's still blowing it out his ass? Know why? Of course you do ... because he's got NOTHING. And watch folks he will repeat this statement over and over hoping you will accept it as fact.



CrackerJax said:


> I haven't the desire to c/p all that stuff.


That's because there is nothing to c/p that can refute the evidence so of course you have no desire.




CrackerJax said:


> I have simply digested both sides and come to the conclusion that terrorists did in fact fly into our towers. Simple...


You mean simple minded 




CrackerJax said:


> The other belief is quite complicated and convoluted. I'll go with Occum's razor...


And most of us will go with the obvious facts. It's only convoluted to the bushwhacked ... the rest of us get it, which is most of us.



pot scott said:


> grow rebel, why don't you just go to cuba with your radical communist friends?


Why don't you go to one of those country where you are not allow to have free speech. I'm sure you would be far more comfortable there. Oh wait ... they probably wouldn't accept people who are mentally stupid ... guess we are stuck with you.



pot scott said:


> I'm sure u and castro would be great buddies. Shit, or u could go to venezuela and hang out with sean penn and hugo chavez.


oooh I'm a jet setter! Bwaa ha ha ha



pot scott said:


> or better yet, go join al qaida


You mean the fake Al Qaeda the CIA made up for imbeciles like you? ... Sorry they don't exists.


pot scott said:


> and fight for the terrorists, u obviosly are one, or deeply admire them.


The only terrorists are the elite behind 911 and their taking parrot namely your dumb ass.



pot scott said:


> just do the world a favor and cease to exist. And it's called FOX news bitch!


Faux news is a joke ... it never was a news outlet and never will be. It was pretty obvious you were a fauxnews parrot ... Folks they did a study on people that watch fauxnews and guess what they found? That's right ... they were the most "misinformed" ... just another way of saying they are "stupid". pottyboy is an excellent example too. Bwaa ha ha ha.



pot scott said:


> I'm not some hardcore republican, i'm a libritarian. scum bags like u are a bad example to america.


Oh yeah I can see in your bushwhacked mind anyone that speak out against war crimes would be bad for America. You've been licking out bush and the rest of his regime ass for so long it would very easily make you feel that way.kiss-ass


pot scott said:


> ur a typical radical leftist who is so brain washed and demented that ur brain can't function like a normal human being.


And you are a typical bushwhacked parrot that has his tongue so far up these war criminals asses that your brain leak out during the act.



pot scott said:


> ppl like u need to be forced into re-education camps and brutally forced to change ur radical pro communist, pro terrorist, pro illegal alien thoughts.


You are so stupid you can't be re edumacated ... 
... poor pussyboy ... wants to beat me up because I don't agree with his stupid mindset ... well you don't have any intelligence ... it's only animal instinst to lash out when you are cornered ... 



pot scott said:


> and i don't care about ur stupid ass bull shit supposed evidence,


I know you don't care since you don't have a prayer of refuting any of it in a coherent manner. All you can do it throw a tanturm and call names ... well I'm pretty good at name calling too dumbass. And please come back ... it's going to be a pleasure showing the folks at home how big a dumbass you are. 



pot scott said:


> ur a traitor to america, as far as i'm concerned u don't deserve freedom, u need to be exported to cuba bitch.


You're the traitor asswipe ... you'd rather lick out war criminals asses than defend your country ... it is YOU that don't deserve to be an American ... you are nothing but a fucking parrot that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the wall. Now don't be a stranger ... come back and see us again. You are way more fun than WH. ...jackass has a slight edge ... but you are gaining!




CrackerJax said:


> I can find just as many to say it is nonsense.... so what?


See what did I tell ya folks ... same bullshit ... different post ... he can find this ... he can find that ... but when he post ... he finds nothing ... and we all know why don't we ... yep ... because he has NOTHING but the shit he blows out his ass ... so what?



pot scott said:


> Plenty of ppl think man cause global warming without a shred of evidence. Why would this be any different?


Lookie here folks ... the famous bushwhacked side track step ... all of them use it ... I think they trade notes too. Why is it different? Because there is undeniable evidence that crack in the ass can't refute ... so he as well as the other must pretend no evidence exsit. Once again he claims there is no evidence despite all that is posted in this thread.




Operation 420 said:


> Our "leaders" have secret ceremonies crucifying a child effigy. Our "leaders" create wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people for wealth. Our "leaders" allow us to work and pay off a never ending debt to the federal reserve.
> 
> And you think he is evil for opposing this?
> 
> Look in the mirror.


Oh so this guy is an patriot for wanting to put people in camps that question the government ... why should he look in the mirror? He pointed out the obvious. Are we suppose to blame the government because pottyboy is an ass?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 4, 2009)

I see you ignored post 983. Isn't that typical?? 

I can c/p your conspiracy away easily as well. 

By the way, not everything has a hidden meaning. Some things are just what they appear to be. i have looked at BOTH sides and have come down on the side of simplicity.....Occam's razor at work. It's one of the few tried and true ways to garner truth. 

You ought to try it sometime....


----------



## pot scott (Aug 4, 2009)

im not gonna try to convince these radicals anymore. it's like trying to talk to a brick wall.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 4, 2009)

Does he think he's on TV?

See folks?

WTF is that?

Delusions of grandeur or what?


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 4, 2009)

I was just trying to point out the hate that is generated to pit us against each other. Why feed into it? Words are just words.

Sticks and stones..


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 4, 2009)

pot scott said:


> im not gonna try to convince these radicals anymore. it's like trying to talk to a brick wall.


 
Dude, if that's what you were trying to do... I think you need to work on your approach a little more.

Telling a person who disagrees with you that they're a commi, pinko, pussy, liberal or whatever simply because they disagree is pointless and isn't going to convince anyone of anything. 


Why don't we try to find some common ground. 

We can ALL atleast agree that there are inconsistencies within the 911 commission report, can't we? 

There are too many coincidences for the report to be true.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I see you ignored post 983. Isn't that typical??


If you mean the now debunked 911 debunk site that TOL put up ... I saw it ... I figure you would rely on something that I showed was debunked back in post 832 ... pretty typical denier bull ... using shit that has already been debunked.



CrackerJax said:


> I can c/p your conspiracy away easily as well.


Notice here again folks he comes back with the same bullshit ... telling us what he can do ... but not doing it ... why? Because he's got nothing other than shooting his mouth off. Nothing new here ... move along.



CrackerJax said:


> By the way, not everything has a hidden meaning.


Who said it was ... other than you?



CrackerJax said:


> Some things are just what they appear to be.


That's right and with the evidence presented 911 appears to be an inside job. At least for those that are willing to see the facts.



CrackerJax said:


> i have looked at BOTH sides and have come down on the side of simplicity.....Occam's razor at work. It's one of the few tried and true ways to garner truth.


... and I have looked at BOTH sides as well and have come down on the side of the obvious. 911 was an inside job. I prefer to follow the evidence and let it lead me to the truth ... that's always worked best for me. Still does.



CrackerJax said:


> You ought to try it sometime....


No thanks ... I prefer to keep my head out of the sand.



pot scott said:


> im not gonna try to convince these radicals anymore. it's like trying to talk to a brick wall.


Oh did I upset the pussyboy? I sorry ... you did absolutely nothing to convince anyone other that shooting your mouth off ... here it's put up or shut up ... we see you will take the shut up ... you was fun ... I will miss you ... 
Bu-byekiss-ass
 



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Does he think he's on TV?
> 
> See folks?
> 
> WTF is that?


WTF do you think it is?



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Delusions of grandeur or what?


What? ... you don't think folks at home come here to see me make a fool of you? Well they do get use to it.




Operation 420 said:


> I was just trying to point out the hate that is generated to pit us against each other. Why feed into it? Words are just words.
> 
> Sticks and stones..


I understand what you are saying and I'm sure the elite love that we fight ... makes them feel secure ... but 911 change this nation for the worst and all because of some greedy elitists. We would be a traitor to this great country if we did not stand up to defend her against these evil people. It is extremely important that the truth about what happen on 911 comes out. The elite don't what that and as you can see are doing all they can to stop any kind of real investigation. So I feel those that can fight back against this evil must. This is my way ... by presenting the facts about 911 for all to see. Most of the people that are given the facts see the truth and that's a good thing. 
Okay folks back to the 911 news ... I have a couple of new video to post ... check it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owyqt-8RnKI&feature=player_embeddedMore proof of WTC 7 lie
[youtube]owyqt-8RnKI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Some of the deniers are post shit about the paint that was use to coat the steel was what the scientist found that they claim was nano thermite ... here is the rebuttal to that.
More About That Exploding Paint
[youtube]XdI7CaAR264[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 4, 2009)

I think any event which is THOROUGHLY examined all kinds of coincidences will pop up.... that doesn't make a conspiracy. 

How many events have been examined to the extent of the WTT????? Not many.

I compare it to the first Bush election. Now I was up in Chicago at a fancy swank cocktail party with all the big movers and shakers about three months after the election. I am cornered by this lovely lady who heard I was from Florida. Well, she thought she was gonna give me a thing or two on how we screwed up the entire country!! 
So she rattles off 10 minutes of diatribe and venting (most calmly however, rich ppl don't yell much), and finally as she took some air, I calmly replied.... Horse Hockey Nancy!! Now you need to remember this party was in Chicago. I simply asked her...IF Illinois was the last state to vote and the entire process was put under the SAME microscope.... wouldn't I be the one dressing you down? 
It's fun to watch the light go on in someone's head.... She apologized and realized my very accurate point. Where's Obama from by the way? 

So, if you take ANY large event and put it under the microscope, all kinds of weird things will come out. That doesn't make it a conspiracy..... just weird.

If you truly put everything under a microscope, we'd never agree on anything.....


----------



## natrone23 (Aug 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I was up in Chicago at a fancy swank cocktail party with all the big movers and shakers about three months after the election. .


See guys he's an "Elitist".


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I think any event which is THOROUGHLY examined all kinds of coincidences will pop up.... that doesn't make a conspiracy.


Yeah and not only that ... damning evidence as well ... at least in the case of 911.



CrackerJax said:


> How many events have been examined to the extent of the WTT????? Not many.


How many events that have been covered up to the extent 911 was that don't get examine? How many events have been covered up ... several ... and 911 is one of the big cover ups.



CrackerJax said:


> I compare it to the first Bush election.


Your personal story has nothing to do with the issue at hand nor does it support the government story.



CrackerJax said:


> So, if you take ANY large event and put it under the microscope, all kinds of weird things will come out. That doesn't make it a conspiracy..... just weird.


Yeah ... weird things like finding incriminating evidence ... and that does make it a conspiracy.



CrackerJax said:


> If you truly put everything under a microscope, we'd never agree on anything.....


Most of us do agree ... when you put something under the microscope ... it just some people simply have a hard time accepting the evidence. Luckily it's just a few.

Notice again folks he failed to produce any evidence that supports the government fairly tale ... just like I told you he would.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 4, 2009)

there is just so much evidence...

it doesnt really matter though


i know you guys HATE youtube videos...

but maybe this can open your mind a little more,


this video is not about 9/11, its about the 07/07 bombings in london (the 9/11 in london)

"what london had a terrorist attack?"

they sure did


only this one is a million times more obvious that the government did it

please watch this video... as it was an utter failure the UK gov tried to conduct....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2NXPl625A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E177j-bH9Vs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwLiaU-KStA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vBrSN9vuIs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPqPTBcX10&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlx1vZIlIv4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfsdF8tHde0&feature=related

this movie will open your mind to the fact that politicians lie

notice peter power going on national tv, smirking and smiling

saying they were conducting a test for the EXACT SAME SCENARIO that happened...

just like 9/11


some how, during their drill, the exact 3 subway trains, and the exact double decker bus, that they were training to have "fake" bombs on, explode....

seems a little fishy huh?

there is a million more fishy facts about the 07/07 bombings... and if you watch this movie, your head will be a little less out of the box


trust me... the movie makes it so obvious its pretty much a head spinner


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 4, 2009)

Keenly why don't you spend an equal amount of time watching debunking you tubes...just to be objective. 

In 2007 Zogby also ran a poll on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The results were that 26% of Americans believe that "certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives." And even that doesn't indicate that the 26 % believe that elements in the US government knew when or where any attacks would occur. 

The results were as follows: 
*65 %* believe that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack on America on 9/11 using passenger commercial jet liners as weapons. 

*26 %* believe that certain elements in the US government knew an attack was coming but let it happen for various political, military and economic motives, but wasn't actively involved in the attacks. 

*5 % *believe that certain US government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks. _*<--------YOU GUYS!!!! *_

4 % were N/S 

By the way , a zogby poll shows that 6 percent of Americans believe the Apollo moon landings were faked.

19 out of 20 ppl disagree with you!!!  can you say....fringe?


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Keenly why don't you spend an equal amount of time watching debunking you tubes...just to be objective.
> 
> In 2007 Zogby also ran a poll on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The results were that 26% of Americans believe that "certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives." And even that doesn't indicate that the 26 % believe that elements in the US government knew when or where any attacks would occur.
> 
> ...


I would group myself more into the 26% category. But CrackerJax, you and me are both atheists right... do you know what percentage of the American population is religious? 

point...set...match.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 4, 2009)

I hear what you are saying but it's apples and oranges. The two do not cross reference each other. 

In a way, you are the religious one now Paddy!!.... Despite all the debunking....you NEED to believe...


----------



## Keenly (Aug 4, 2009)

like i said, you cant really have a poll on the internet

it will get stacked



how many people were in this pole?

at what area was the poll done? (if not online)


also...the laws of physics and fundamental engineering principles can not be "debunked"


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I hear what you are saying but it's apples and oranges. The two do not cross reference each other.
> 
> In a way, you are the religious one now Paddy!!.... Despite all the debunking....you NEED to believe...



If there is ANY debunking going on for the side of the sheep, its WH who has been doing it. Cracker you haven't provided anything to your sides argument. Coming out here and calling everyone who thinks the Gubbermint had something to do with this as "Crazy, Fringe,loony" is not an argument, its just ad hominem attacks and most people here are way too smart to fall for that.
You need to come up with some evidence OTHER than " The Gov't said so".


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 4, 2009)

Keenly said:


> there is just so much evidence...
> 
> it doesnt really matter though
> 
> ...


Coincidences happen all the time. It was just Coincidence that 1000 things happened exactly as they had planned and at the exact times they had planned for them. 

FWIW I wrote that as sarcastically as I could.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> In 2007 Zogby also ran a poll on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The results were that 26% of Americans believe that "certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives." And even that doesn't indicate that the 26 % believe that elements in the US government knew when or where any attacks would occur.
> 
> The results were as follows:
> *65 %* believe that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack on America on 9/11 using passenger commercial jet liners as weapons.
> ...


Notice folks at home how the deniers never provide a link to their bullshit ... in fact I posted a link to a Zogby poll way back on page 56 post 553 ... and this poll stated 
Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks 44%​ Bush justified an attack on Iraq 44​ Neither/Not sure 11​
US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up 48%​ US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42​ Not sure 10​So let see a link to this new Zogby poll ... this one was done back in May of 2006. 

Plus there are other polls I posted in that same post ... check it out for yourselves ...

"Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story"
... and it's not just blogs ...it's corporate news too 

*Oct. 2006*
*May 2002*
Telling the truth
16%
21%
Hiding something
53%
65%
Mostly lying
28%
8%
Not sure
3%
6%
*Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.


The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A  Canadian Poll  put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll  had the figure at 89%.


**So once again you have been caught blowing shit out of your ass. But we already knew you deniers are the ones that are the "fringe" group.

*


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 4, 2009)

Their are lies, damn lies and then there are Statistics. Polls are statistics and as long as you know how to poll correctly you can have almost any outcome you want. As long as you know WHO to call you can get the answers you are looking for. Polls and approval ratings are nothing more than he said she said games in my Opinion.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 4, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Their are lies, damn lies and then there are Statistics. Polls are statistics and as long as you know how to poll correctly you can have almost any outcome you want.


 
Exactly, just ask Frank Luntz..


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 4, 2009)

What do I think it is?

I think some one spent too much time in the sun?

Accidentally drank some spiked kool-aid?

I can't really tell. I'll go with number one.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 4, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> What do I think it is?
> 
> I think some one spent too much time in the sun?
> 
> ...


So you're going with "What do I think it is?" ? ... huh 

Cracker, i'm still waiting for you to debunk it. I want to believe it was terrorists. Seriously.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 4, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> What do I think it is?
> 
> I think some one spent too much time in the sun?
> 
> ...


 
Why do you even bother with posts like this man, seriously all it does is fortify your reputation as a troll...

Keep pushing those talking points...

Tin-foil hats, the irony being that most of the retards who use that one don't know the difference between 'tin' and 'aluminum'...

The fact you group anyone who questions authority into a 'kool aid drinking, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist' shows how close minded you are.

I really hope you're under 20 years old so that you might still have a chance to develope your mind before it gets too late. 

People in power want to keep it, they want to keep you from questioning them, they want to keep you in line and believe them because of their position of authority, they use your own basic instincts against you, you have to be smart enough to see through that shit and see them for what they are. Nobody in power will EVER put your problems before their greed, it'll never happen.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 4, 2009)

Tin blocks the mind control rays.
Aluminum only blocks scanning.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Notice folks at home how the deniers never provide a link to their bullshit ... in fact I posted a link to a Zogby poll way back on page 56 post 553 ... and this poll stated
> Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks 44%​ Bush justified an attack on Iraq 44​ Neither/Not sure 11​
> US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up 48%​ US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42​ Not sure 10​So let see a link to this new Zogby poll ... this one was done back in May of 2006.
> 
> ...


Yes yes, I apologize for not "sourcing" the poll. These days it's all about attacking the polls or the messenger, instead of the data. 

It was a ZOGBY poll..... OUCH!!!!!  Same as yours GR....same as yours. OUCH!!!

You guys are the fringe element..... why deny it? It's okay to be a nut.


LOOK FOLKS LOOK!!!  Look here folks!!  He thinks he has a mass audience....


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 5, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> What do I think it is?
> 
> I think some one spent too much time in the sun?
> 
> ...


We know you can't tell ... that why you continue to fail each time you post ... and if anyone drinking kool-aid it's you.



CrackerJax said:


> Yes yes, I apologize for not "sourcing" the poll. These days it's all about attacking the polls or the messenger, instead of the data.
> 
> It was a ZOGBY poll..... OUCH!!!!! Same as yours GR....same as yours. OUCH!!!


No dumbass it's not the same as mine. We know you claimed it was a zogby poll but ... as usual ... you didn't provide a link and I can find NO zogby poll that gives the numbers you claim so you will have to provide the link or accept your "zogby poll" is bogus ... My "zogby poll" show 42% don't buy the bullshit ... that doesn't sound like a fringe to me. OUCH!! Bwa ha ha ha.



CrackerJax said:


> You guys are the fringe element..... why deny it? It's okay to be a nut.


You are the one in denial here ... notice folks at home he totally disregarded the other polls ... why because it shows I am right ... and I'd must rather be a nut than be one of the bushwhacked metal cases ... who really is a fringe element. Just another example of the deniers projecting their own short coming on another.kiss-ass




CrackerJax said:


> LOOK FOLKS LOOK!!!  Look here folks!!  He thinks he has a mass audience....


Check it out folks ... he wants to believe you don't exist! Must be getting to him that I'm showing you what a complete and total idiot he is who has yet to back any of the shit he is blowing out his ass.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 5, 2009)

I didn't say my poll was the same as yours... Your either need to work on your reading comprehension or quit drinking coffee.

It's a Zogby poll none the less, despite ur disbelief, which doesn't concern me a one wit. 

Deep in the rabbit hole U R....


----------



## leetsoup (Aug 5, 2009)

don't forget the moon hoax...
"why weren't there any stars..."
this world as you see it, is not what you get.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I didn't say my poll was the same as yours...


Oh no? You can't even comprehend your own damn posts!  Check this out folks at home ... caught once again!



CrackerJax said:


> It was a ZOGBY poll..... OUCH!!!!!* Same as yours* GR....*same as yours*. OUCH!


You make up so much shit you can't remember it all ... so once again you've been caught blowing it out your ass.



CrackerJax said:


> Your either need to work on your reading comprehension or quit drinking coffee.


It's pretty clear who really has a problem with reading comprehension ... perhaps you should quit drinking coffee. You might not look so dumb.



CrackerJax said:


> It's a Zogby poll none the less, despite ur disbelief, which doesn't concern me a one wit.


No ... until you provide a link there is no such poll ... I provided the link to the zogby poll I posted you provide a link to yours ... until you do ... it's a bogus poll that you merely made up. We all know why it doesn't concern you ... why should it ... you can't back it so why worry about it. 



CrackerJax said:


> Deep in the rabbit hole U R....


I'm not afraid to go into the rabbit hole for the truth ... you are too big a pussy to go in yourself ... you'd rather pretend the government had nothing to do with 911 and they protect you from the evil "terrorists" 

You make it all to easy ... come back again so I can show the folks at home how you continue to blow shit out your ass like all you deniers.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 5, 2009)

leetsoup said:


> don't forget the moon hoax...
> "why weren't there any stars..."
> this world as you see it, is not what you get.


 Because the camera setting were set to make the moon look good. Shutter speed light etc I'm not much of a camera man. 

Why they didn't change some settings and take pics of the stars for the first time without having to shoot thru our atmosphere is beyond me?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 5, 2009)

leetsoup said:


> don't forget the moon hoax...
> "why weren't there any stars..."
> this world as you see it, is not what you get.


There was no moon hoax ... nor was Obama born in Kenya ... these bogus stories were put out to try to discredit the 911 movement, but it won't work. They have absolutely nothing to do with 911 and those that believe it are fools.


----------



## leetsoup (Aug 5, 2009)

No man is more enslaved than he who believes he is free.

ps. mexi you contradict yourself. rebel, the moon hoax has been around for 40 years.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2009)

leetsoup said:


> No man is more enslaved than he who believes he is free.
> 
> ps. mexi you contradict yourself. rebel, the moon hoax has been around for 40 years.


And prey tell how did I contradict myself?
Bullshit ... that hoax started a few years ago to discredit the 911 movement nothing more. You will have to provide a link to back that statement. I doubt you can.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 6, 2009)

leetsoup said:


> No man is more enslaved than he who believes he is free.



This implies that men cannot be free, or must FEEL oppressed if he is.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2009)

http://world911truth.org/steven-jones-on-nanothermite/Video: Steven E. Jones on explosive nano-thermite in 9/11 dust
Lecture by physics Prof. Steven E. Jones on the discovery of the high-tech, military grade explosive nano-thermite in the dust from the 9/11 disaster as revealed in the peer-reviewed paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3rd, 2009
Note: This video is in 12 parts and the player above will automatically play each part one after the other. For a the complete list of these 12 videos, visit http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1BA16A673C07ED1E


http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2009/08/kbdi-denver-airs-911-press-for-truth.htmlKBDI Denver Airs 9/11 Press for Truth-911 Family Members get a chance to speak
Finally - a breakthrough has occurred where they got some more TV time - the only elixir with the means to awaken a sleeping and disinformed American public. Please take a second look - your future, and your children's futures depend on it.
[snip]

Your government, my fellow citizens, spent $100 Million bucks of YOUR MONEY investigating Clinton's sexual escapades - but only allotted $3 Million originally to seek justice for the 911 victims
[snip]

 they screwed up big time on 911 - and who was held to account? Not one person was demoted or fired -
[snip]
the first responders have been hung out to dry - no wait - hung out to DIE - as their lungs rot away from the poisonous air they were told was safe to breath by ... you guessed it - our federal government.
[snip]
It is a common misconception, spread mainly by shills in chat rooms and comment sections in blogs - that it dishonors the families of the victims by searching for answers to the 911 crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE 911 VICTIMS' FAMILIES THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO 911 INVESTIGATION.

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=2030BBC now admits Al Qaeda never existed
Al Qaeda = the base + i arabic word = the data base
al qaeda is basically just a database of names of jihads who fought the commies in afghanistan in the 80s !


That's all for the news update folks ... I will post more as soon as it becomes available.


----------



## TreesOfLife (Aug 6, 2009)

leetsoup said:


> don't forget the moon hoax...
> "why weren't there any stars..."
> this world as you see it, is not what you get.


They "lost" the tapes too haha.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=moon+landing+&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10&start=0

No stars... makes you wonder...


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 6, 2009)

leetsoup said:


> No man is more enslaved than he who believes he is free.
> 
> ps. mexi you contradict yourself. rebel, the moon hoax has been around for 40 years.


 Please tell me how I did so? Watch A funny thing happened on the way to the moon! It's all footage provided by Nasa thru freedom of infromation act. They just gave them these reels not realizing what was all on them. Pretty wild doc. Not going to get into it here besides the star part. In the doc they ask the same thing. Why are there no stars in the moon photo pics? Common answer is the camera settings, I take night pics that have no stars visible I assume the cam isn't letting in enough light. They just question that answer with, why then isn't there just star photo's alone. that's all.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2009)

The government is getting so desperate to change people's minds about 911 they have put up a web site

Still spouting the same lies, and at the end of the article they ask what I thought of it ... so I told them ...

So you really want to know what I think? Some how I doubt that, but I will tell you anyway.

Very few people are buying your lies. You can't deny the scientific evidence of nano thermite in the WTC dust. Something that can't be made in a cave, but can be made by defense contractors that had a lot to gain from 911. Skyscrapers design to withstand several plane impacts and fire do not come crashing down at free fall speed in their own foot print. 

The jet fuel burned off 15 minutes after impact, and does not get hot enough to melt structural steel. I know you would like to think we are stupid enough to believe that, but most of us don't. We've seen the infra-red photos that the bogus 911 commission ignored, that proves the fire cooled down once the jet fuel burned off. 

911 was an inside job ... that's a fact you can't get away from no matter how many lies or propaganda you put out. If you truly want to stop all the "conspiracy theories" then have a REAL investigation. NON-PARTISAN independent where witness must testify UNDER OATH with serve penalty for perjury. But we know that's not going to happen ... and we know why ... it would prove 911 was indeed an inside job. This isn't the first false flag operation the US has done and I doubt it will be the last. Until there is a REAL NON-PARTISAN investigation with subpoena power, 911 will always be known as a false flag operation. 

You are in a "no win" situation. I for one will continue to present evidence to others that prove 911 was an inside job, and the government refusal to have a real investigation because they don't want the fact it was an inside job to come out. 

But you know what? It already is out ... that's why you have put out this propaganda. I will NEVER stop until the truth is generally known and those responsible are held accountable. 

The government obviously believes the life of an elitist far more out weighs the lives of peasants. The government will make sure no blood of an elitist will be shed even if they are responsible for the deaths of millions ... they were only peasants ... right? 

And that's what I think. Happy? 

We really must be getting to them ... keep up the good works folks.

This just in ...

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/68http://www.ae911truth.org/info/68[URL="http://www.ae911truth.org/info/68"] *Richard Gage, AIA, on Coast to Coast AM Leads to Surge of Interest*​   [/url]

More to come. If I can find it I will be posting an important document ... stay tuned.


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 6, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> This implies that men cannot be free, or must FEEL oppressed if he is.


The real quote is, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who *falsely* believe they are free."


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2009)

Nano Thermite Paper

Folks this is the paper that members of WAC were handing out in the videos I posted ... right now they are working on the third video of them handing this out to members of congress ... this video will show that asswipe Chuck Shoemer calling the cops and having them arrested for politely asking a question. They were held for over an hour by the police. The paper is a pdf file.

This is for those of you that really want the truth and would like to do something about it. This is what I plan to do, and I hope those of you that care about this will follow suit. I am going to print out the document I posted and send it register mail to my worthless representatives putting them on notice just like the members of WAC did in the video. If enough of us do it they will shit their pants. Let them know we are on to the lies. Help make a difference.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 6, 2009)

I'm laughing so hard.

So I made a comment about this see folks stuff of rebels.

In it I asked what that was about.

He said WTF do you think it is. I responded.

Do you have to read more into it than what it really was?

What it really was: A comment referring to the use of see folks.

Man, sometimes I wonder why I even post.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 6, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I'm laughing so hard.
> 
> So I made a comment about this see folks stuff of rebels.
> 
> ...


We don't have to wonder ... we know why ... you like being made a fool of in front of others ... that's why you post.kiss-ass


----------



## leetsoup (Aug 6, 2009)

Thank you Homegrown, i didn't feel like Googlin' the correct saying. And Grow, you contradict yourself in the sense that you believe 9/11 was faked, however the moon landing was not. they were both heavily covered up. I Know 9/11 was in inside job, and there is more to the moon landing than has ever been revealed. seriously you have got to be a moron to believe they landed
a man on the moon in that era, i mean COME ON. computers were the size of your fuckin house! it may have been 40 years ago but the evidence has not deteriorated.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 6, 2009)

You are definitely comedic humor rebel.

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 6, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You are definitely comedic humor rebel.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.


Ignorance is bliss.

Keep living in your fairy tale world.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 6, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Oh no? You can't even comprehend your own damn posts!  Check this out folks at home ... caught once again!
> 
> You make up so much shit you can't remember it all ... so once again you've been caught blowing it out your ass.
> 
> ...



You sir are the one making it up. it was a Zogby poll. If I say it was, it was. Period. You sound a bit crazier every day.  It's tough on the edge....I guess.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 7, 2009)

What I think.


I think Sibel Edmonds is the key to the real answer... but I don't think she knows it.

I think the government sponsored terrorism. I think we used Al-Qaeda to do dirty things. I think 9/11 was a punch in the nose. The hand that feeds was bitten.

Al-Queda works pretty much like a franchise. I think we were able to effect black ops terrorism by proxy of Al-Qaeda. I think we were naive enough to believe we could manipulate them to do our bidding, and the open hatred for the US served as a perfect cover to shield rebuke from China and Russia for what we were having them do. I do not believe we were complicit in the attack against us... I believe it was a platform for Al-Qaeda to launch to superstardom, get worldwide legitimacy, and expand the organization.

Clinton let UBL go 3 times. There had to be a reason.

I believe we had ties... I believe we were playing with fire... and got burned. 


As I said from the beginning... I am not a yes man. I just don't see our government being competent enough to pull something that big, that detailed off. We can't keep a secret to save our lives. Literally.


----------



## natrone23 (Aug 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I think we used Al-Qaeda to do dirty things. .


Like what?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 7, 2009)

Create chaos in Central Asia from Xinjiang to Uzbekistan so we could expand our control of energy resources and sell military equipment.


----------



## natrone23 (Aug 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Create chaos in Central Asia from Xinjiang to Uzbekistan so we could expand our control of energy resources and sell military equipment.


Thats certainly a possiblity.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 7, 2009)

Wouldn't it be weird to find out in the end that people behind the scenes are the ones who control the world and use terrorists to their own ends? Governments are only a Facade that covers the men behind the curtain.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 7, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Wouldn't it be weird to find out in the end that people behind the scenes are the ones who control the world and use terrorists to their own ends? Governments are only a Facade that covers the men behind the curtain.


Their names are Murdoch and Soros.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 7, 2009)

Maybe I can find you some placement in the obama admin. You guys would make great policy wonks.... devoid of facts... just make it up.... we can run our country on what ifs....that always works out in the end.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 7, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
http://www.justacitizen.com/

"On October 18, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the State Secrets Privilege in order to prevent disclosure of the nature of Edmonds' work on the grounds that it would endanger national security, and asked that the suit be dismissed."

Then on Nov 1st, Bush pens executive order 13233 giving former presidents, or their power of attorney if deceased, the power to invoke State Secrets Privilege on anything which occurred during their presidency.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html


Nobody questions this woman. The one time they took a disparaging position on her claims was to say that foreknowledge of 9/11 was a lie. Then came the FBI memo's demonstrating exactly what she said.


This is the most gagged person in US history who is not paid for sex.



Oh wait... I know CJ... She is conservative, and she is hot. Now you have to believe her.










In 2005 the Office of Inspector General of the FBI concluded that she had been sacked for making valid complaints.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0533/app7.htm
(DOJ site if you are paranoid)


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 7, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> You are definitely comedic humor rebel.Thanks for the laugh.


Same here ... the fact you are so stupid despite undeniable scientific facts is hilarious! It's fun making you look stupid ... please come again.



CrackerJax said:


> You sir are the one making it up.


Oh am I madame? ... lets look at the facts again shall we?



CrackerJax said:


> It was a ZOGBY poll..... OUCH!!!!! Same as yours GR....same as yours. OUCH!!!





CrackerJax said:


> I didn't say my poll was the same as yours...


Check it folks ... caught making up shit ... but like the typical bushwhacked minded they project their short comings on to others so she pretends it was me that's making shit up ... notice she shows no proof like I did. I wonder why? 



CrackerJax said:


> it was a Zogby poll. If I say it was, it was. Period.


If she says it was it was! Bwaa ha ha ha! That's funny! How many times do we have to tell you bushwhacked deniers ... what you say don't fly ... put up or shut up ... I provided a zogby link you did not. And the reason you did not is because it doesn't exist. So you were caught again making shit up. Why am I NOT surprised.



CrackerJax said:


> You sound a bit crazier every day. It's tough on the edge....I guess.


Yeah ... right ... lets look at that again folks ... 


CrackerJax said:


> It was a ZOGBY poll..... OUCH!!!!! Same as yours GR....same as yours. OUCH!!!





CrackerJax said:


> I didn't say my poll was the same as yours...


Yeah I must be crazy to keep proving you make shit up ... I see in a bushwhacked mind that would be really crazy!
"You keep proving I'm full of shit! Your crazy! Bwaa ha ha ha.
 ... caught making shit up! Now watch folks ... watch her pretend it never happen.kiss-ass




CrackerJax said:


> Maybe I can find you some placement in the obama admin. You guys would make great policy wonks.... devoid of facts... just make it up.... we can run our country on what ifs....that always works out in the end.


You are the one devoid of facts ... you haven't posted anything all you have done is shoot you big mouth off and expect us to take it as gospel ... to bad for you we won't. You are really a hypocrite when it comes to telling people they make shit up.


leetsoup said:


> And Grow, you contradict yourself in the sense that you believe 9/11 was faked, however the moon landing was not.
> they were both heavily covered up.


I'm not contradicting myself ... I know 911 was an inside job ... and I know the moon landing was not fake. I saw it on tv when I was a kid.
Besides this bullshit about the moon landing has absolutely nothing to do with 911 ... did the US go to war because of this so called fake moon landing? Did the US torture, and detain innocent people indefinitely because of this so called fake moon landing? Were things that were crimes became legal or ignored due to the so called fake moon landing? Did they trash the constitution due to the so called fake moon landing? Did oil corporations, private armies, defense contractor make billions because of the so called fake moon landing? Were over a million innocent people killed because of this so called fake moon landing? Did we lose our rights like we did with the patriot act because of the faked moon landing? Did we have to start taking our shoes off at airports due to the so called fake moon landing?
So tell me what difference does it make if the moon landing was fake or not? How does it effect us like 911 has? 




leetsoup said:


> I Know 9/11 was in inside job, and there is more to the moon landing than has ever been revealed. seriously you have got to be a moron to believe they landed
> a man on the moon in that era, i mean COME ON. computers were the size of your fuckin house! it may have been 40 years ago but the evidence has not deteriorated.


Like I said before ... I saw the moon landing on TV ... as far as I'm concern it was real, and since it doesn't effect us like 911 I say you have to be a moron to lump the two in the same category.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 7, 2009)

Fellow truthers ... who want to make a difference here is the cover letter we are change LA had with their report ... you can sent the report to your rep certified letter ... this way someone has to sign for it and it put them on notice ... 

Dear Honorable Congress Person, 
We the People, in order to restore rule of law and accountability to our Republic, respectfully insist that you, as an elected representative, squarely face the facts concerning the events of September 11, 2001 and the implications thereof. 

It is our moral and civic duty to entrust to you facts and scientific analysis in the form of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers that clearly and conclusively prove thousands of our fellow human beings and citizens were murdered in controlled and criminal demolitions on September 11, 2001. 

Plausible deniability of these facts and evidence is no longer possible. 

If you fail to acknowledge and act immediately and decisively on this evidence, then your inaction will constitute misprision of treason in the least, outright treason at worst. The time is now to fulfill your oath to the Constitution and stand tall in the face of the corruption of our Republic. We the People stand with you. 

*Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115 

§ 2381. Treason *

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. 

*And § 2382. Misprision of Treason *

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. 

Sincerely,

Yeah I like that ... plus they have other pdf files ... check it ...

http://files.meetup.com/749288/NanoTh...
http://files.meetup.com/749288/The%20...
http://files.meetup.com/749288/WTCHig...
http://files.meetup.com/749288/14%20p...

Plus: a brochure from http://www.ae911truth.org 

Those of you that really want to make a difference this is an excellent way to do so. If you do, sent this and you get a response please post it. I will do the same. Thanks to those that plan to help.


----------



## ChChoda (Aug 7, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Fellow truthers ... who want to make a difference here is the cover letter we are change LA had with their report ... you can sent the report to your rep certified letter ... this way someone has to sign for it and it put them on notice ...
> 
> Dear Honorable Congress Person,
> We the People, in order to restore rule of law and accountability to our Republic, respectfully insist that you, as an elected representative, squarely face the facts concerning the events of September 11, 2001 and the implications thereof.
> ...


How many years can you keep this up?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 7, 2009)

ChChoda said:


> How many years can you keep this up?


As long as it takes. The truth must and will be generally known. Those responsible must be held accountable.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 7, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> What I think.
> I think the government sponsored terrorism. I think we used Al-Qaeda to do dirty things. I think 9/11 was a punch in the nose. The hand that feeds was bitten.
> 
> Al-Queda works pretty much like a franchise. I think we were able to effect black ops terrorism by proxy of Al-Qaeda. I think we were naive enough to believe we could manipulate them to do our bidding, and the open hatred for the US served as a perfect cover to shield rebuke from China and Russia for what we were having them do. I do not believe we were complicit in the attack against us... I believe it was a platform for Al-Qaeda to launch to superstardom, get worldwide legitimacy, and expand the organization.


Al Qaeda is fake ...
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=2030BBC now admits Al Qaeda never existed
 


what... huh? said:


> As I said from the beginning... I am not a yes man. I just don't see our government being competent enough to pull something that big, that detailed off. We can't keep a secret to save our lives. Literally.


The cat's out of the bag ... like I said before ... if they had pulled it off reports of a false flag attack would not be all over the internet. I don't know how you deniers come to the conclusion the government kept it secret ... if that were true we wouldn't be taking about it now would we ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 7, 2009)

You have no evidence..... simply bring it to a court and see how hard they laugh at you. I'd suggest writing to Soto....maybe she will empathize with you..... are you latino?


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You have no evidence..... simply bring it to a court and see how hard they laugh at you. I'd suggest writing to Soto....maybe she will empathize with you..... are you latino?


Irrational hatred of a female minority. Seen clear as day.

However, I do agree that a site named revolutionarypolitics.com should be avoided as a legitimate news source.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 7, 2009)

Your post is the one that is most revealing. Soto is an activist judge with a horrible record. My wife is a latino..... so I guess your assumptions are dead on as usual...not.

Why I stick to facts.


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Your post is the one that is most revealing. Soto is an activist judge with a horrible record. My wife is a latino..... so I guess your assumptions are dead on as usual...not.
> 
> Why I stick to facts.


Right. You stick to facts. You've never made assumptions on this site. You really want to stick to this claim?

And do you get ALL your one-liners from Alex Jones?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You have no evidence.....


Just because you are an idiot who pretends the evidence doesn't exist doesn't make it truth. Not to mention just because you said there is no evidence doesn't make it true. The only thing that isn't true is you having a valid argument.



CrackerJax said:


> simply bring it to a court and see how hard they laugh at you.


Not nearly as hard as we laugh at you and your desperate attempt to discredited clear undeniable scientific facts. 



CrackerJax said:


> I'd suggest writing to Soto....maybe she will empathize with you..... are you latino?


I don't need your suggestions ... they are worthless like all your posts. So you don't like us writing our reps about war crimes huh dummy ... too fucking bad.



jrh72582 said:


> However, I do agree that a site named revolutionarypolitics.com should be avoided as a legitimate news source.


And why is that? Have any of the information put out by this site been proven wrong? Can you present evidence that they put out bogus reports? Do you have a problem with corporate news as a legitimate source?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

Couple of things ... first I believe congress is out of session right now. For those of you that plan to mail the report. So you may have the choice of mailing it to their local office. I plan to check this out for sure and will get back and post the results.

Here is a Youtube video of the BBC admitting Al-Qaeda is fake.
BBC now admits al qaeda never existed
[youtube]r-hYorNi0nA[/youtube]
Listen and watch carefully folks ... this video explains a great many things. But of course the bushwhacked deniers will continue to believe they exist, just like they believe that 19 hijackers broke through some of the toughest security with box cutters and plan 911 in a cave in Afghanistan. They just adore that fairytale. 

Well dang it they have to have something to believe in ... don't they?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

That guys name is BBC???


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 8, 2009)

LMAO


That's funny... I don't care who ya are.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

Hi folks ... found this 911 doc ... and guess how much I paid for it ... was steal ... can you guess?

911 shocking documentery
[youtube]v5thLh7UuaM&NR=1[/youtube]
I know how some of you like a bit of info on these videos so here goes ... 
Well some of you are not going to like the first minute ... a woman talking to a 911 dispatcher ... very disturbing.
Then they talk about Osama Bin Laden and the FBI not having 911 listed as one of his crimes. When asked why not ... they said because they don't have the evidence ... I wonder why? This part makes note that there was never an investigation into 911.
A man who was in the WTC2 that day gives his account of what happen. When the plane hit the first tower it did damage to the 99-93 floors. That's it.
About 6 minutes into this video some Nobel prize winner ... I can't make out his name ... "Dario?o sounds Italian. Talks about how the buildings were design to handle impact because when the building was hit it moved with the plane ... after impact it went back to its original position why ... because they were specifically design to do so.

911 shocking documentery pt2
[youtube]_1JMQc5piPk&feature=related[/youtube]
In this part the same man who was in WTC2 from the first part continues to give his account of what happen that day. They have another survivor give his account of what happen ... he speaks Spanish ... more disturbing scenes of people jumping from the building.
They talk about the NIST conclusion of why the towers fell. 
2:40 the same prize winner comes back stating that the people who designed the buildings said it could handle what happen. "The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners"
(from Frank D Martini WTC construction manager). 3 minutes in the prize winner talks about the fire in Madrid that burned for 20 hours straight yet it's still standing. It was a way bigger fire than any of the ones in NY.
4:36 Prof. Steven Jones chimes in. He said you can see the smoke was black and the fire dark red indicating the fire was losing oxygen. The prize winner come back and state never the less ... 55 minutes later ... the towers comes crashing down. At the end the prize winner ask if the fires were so hot that they could supposedly melt steel how is it that people who survived that were above the floors were able to come down past those steel melting fires.

911 shocking documentery pt3
[youtube]bp86ZdMkw0o&feature=related[/youtube]
This part WTC2 guy continues his account of what happen.
He said once they got down to the lower floors ... everything was normal ... lights on cool air moving through. They also showed the picture No put up of the woman standing near the hole in the building, to show the fire was not hot enough to melt steel.
One of the "loony" makes a statement ... "It is a non controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC building is false" (Paul Craig Roberts ... Assistant Secretary of Treasury ... under R. Reagan)
They talk about the test UL did ... and Kevin Ryan ... you folks remember him right ... talked about him way back on page 80 post 798. He was fired for revealing the truth. Kevin Ryan himself speak about his findings and how he disproved the "pancake theory". This is about 2 minutes into the video He proves that the temperature was too low to cause steel to melt. 
4:40 Another Italian guy who is a metal expert from the Italian Center for Materials Development stating "there was something inexplicable about the speed of the collapse". There was no resistance from the undamaged structure below ... and that is impossible.
6:05 they talk about WTC 7 the prize guy and Steven Jones.
They state all three buildings shared one thing in common ... molten metal.
7:20 video of molten metal pouring from the tower.
7:52 the metal expert comes back and talks about the analysis that was done on a beam from the site. Evidence showed the steel had melted which was impossible because the fire could have only reached 800 degrees, and to melt a steel beam temperatures would have to be around 1600 degrees.
8:40 check it out what they found.

911 shocking documentery pt4
[youtube]bpnXRe7yPb8&NR=1[/youtube]]
Steven Jones talks about his interview with a demolition expert. The expert states that they can use radio control to set off the explosives and they have to be done in a sequence in order to get the building to come rapidly and straight down into it's footprint.
After that they start comparing demos of other buildings next to the collapse of the towers.
Another "loony" states ... :30
"All the characteristics of these collapses show that they must have been controlled demolitions. (William Ch? can't make out ... 29 years with the CIA)
1:00 Jones states that the puff the deniers claim where from the pressure of the floor collapsing is bullshit because it doesn't explain the molten metal.
1:15 A survivor by the name of Jeanette McKinley gives her account of what happen that day. She was the one that gave the dust to Steven Jones. Jones discusses his finding from the dust.
2:50 Prof. David Ray Griffin ...no relation to Peter Griffin ... gives an account of his interviews with the firefighters.
3:32 Janitor WTC worker for 20 years gives his account of what happen. He describes hearing explosions. The WTC 2 guy describes hearing them too.

911 shocking doc part 5
[youtube]M0GIQSovhBQ&feature=related[/youtube]
In this part they talk about the plane that hit the pentagon.
:33 "To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ridiculous." (Capt. Russ Wittenberg US Air Force; Pan Am, UA pilot for 30 years.)
1:00 rare footage of what happen after impact.
Capt. Wittenberg give his professional opinion. 
2:51 the prize guy talks about the pentagon and the unanswered questions.
Listen very carefully 6 minutes in.
7:20 ... another "loony" makes a statement ...
"With all the evidence readily available at the pentagon crash site any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the pentagon." (Col. George Nelson Aircraft accident investigator US Air Force)

Stay tune for part two of this post.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

Quantity over quality eh? 

Okay here, is some real quality....


*What al-Qaeda says about 9/11*


The purveyors of conspiracy theories concerning the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001 try to claim that al-Qaeda was a scapegoat for false flag atrocities committed by the US government against its own people. One would assume that were this to be true, al-Qaedas own leaders and spokesmen would be quick to deny their responsibility for a barbaric act which was condemned by Quranic scholars as a violation of the tenets of Islam, and which actually caused considerable outrage in the Muslim world.

Unfortunately for the Truthers, this isnt happening.

Conspiracy theorists are quick to allege that statements attributed to Osama bin Laden are faked. What they are not prepared to admit is that it is not only bin Laden and his co-leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who readily acknowledge their responsibility for - and pride in - 9/11, but a number of lower-level figures who do the same, not just in public statements released via al-Jazeera, but in messages and treatises circulated online between al-Qaeda activists and their affiliates.

This article discusses al-Qaedas own internal strategic debates in detail, and also includes quotes from ideologists and senior terrorists within this group on 9/11. They are worth noting in full:

The power and significance of the raid on the US enemy lay not only in the loss of life and property, but also in the political message that the raid sent to the freedom-loving downtrodden who yearn for freedom, dignity and pride  It was unexpected and unimaginable. It struck a sudden blow at the [USA] from an unexpected direction .

Al-Qaida took the enemy by surprise with the raids on New York and Washington. Roles were reversed, and the enemy was thrown into confusion by the event. He was left looking for explanations, a prisoner of his reactions. The mujahidin were in motion, moving the battle along, a powerful factor in their favor (sic). This is the secret of the United States fear of al-Qaida. Al Qaida has hit on the correct method for fighting and defeating the Americans, God willing.

Abu Ayman al-Hilali, The Real Story of the Raids on New York and Washington, in Essays on the September 11th Raid (2002). al-Hilali (to use his nom de guerre) is a senior al-Qaeda leader and ideologist. More on him here.

[The 9/11 attacks] put fear in the hearts of Americans everywhere. Warnings of impending jihad attacks have taken a murderous toll on the nerves of the US masses, who do not understand why their vast military apparatus has failed to stop these attacks 

The cameras of CNN and other Western media dinosaurs undertook the task of filming the raid and sowing fear in its aftermath. It didnt cost Al-Qaida a cent.

Abu Ubayd al-Qirshi, The 11th September Raid: The impossible becomes possible, in Essays on the September 11th Raid. al-Qirshi is another senior al-Qaeda strategists, see here for more.

Our ultimate objective of these painful strikes against the head of the serpent was to prompt it to come out of its hole. This would make it easier for us to deal consecutive blows to undermine it and tear it apart. It would foster our credibility in front of our nation and the beleaguered people of the world. A person will react randomly when he receives painful strikes on his head from an undisclosed enemy. Such strikes will force the person to carry out random acts and provoke him to make serious and sometimes fatal mistakes. This was what actually happened.

Sayf al-Adl, an al-Qaeda military commander, in Peter Bergen, The Osama bin Landen I Know: An Oral History of Al-Qaedas Leader (NY: Free Press 2006), p.309. More on him here.

It is an excellent strategic surprise. The American intelligence services were caught by a surprise (sic) that they had not considered  It is a surprise that had results. This surprise led to a shock in the American consciousness [and] lead to a radical change in the perception of American Security.

Mohammad Khalil al-Hakaymah (AKA Mohammad Hasan Khalil al-Hakim, or Abu Jihad al-Masri), The Myth of Delusion: Exposing the American Intelligence. al-Hakaymah is an al-Qaeda commander who is said to have been killed in a US Predator strike in Pakistan on 31st October 2008. More on him here.




I could go on, but nothing more needs to be said. Despite the lies peddled by the misnamed truth movement, al-Qaedas message about 9/11 is clear and consistent - We did it, and we are proud of it. The attempts by increasingly deranged conspiracy theorists to claim otherwise therefore not only lack any credibility, but also leave the Truthers open to ridicule.


*OUCH!!!!!* Straight from the horses mouth.


----------



## ilkhan (Aug 8, 2009)

Al-qeada will say whatever their CIA handlers tell them to say.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 8, 2009)

Apparently nobody on the planet has ever taken credit for something that they didnt' do... I mean, that's totally never happened throughout history..ever!

..need I make you a list CrackerJax?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

Right? It's a conspiracy within a conspiracy.

heck anyone who disagrees with the conspiracy...is IN on the conspiracy!!! 

WOW, I FINALLY TAPPED INTO GROWREBELS LOGIC BASE...IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW...


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 8, 2009)

Do you think the LIHOP theory is completely out of the question CJ?

Do you think certain people within the government had a lot to gain through an invasion of the middle east and pushed for it at all costs, including lying about evidence to gain support for the invasion, and showing extreme incompetence that was subsequently rewarded? Or do you think it is just a big coincidence that those same certain people who happened to push for invasion int he beginning ended up making the most money from their role in the entire mess?


----------



## Keenly (Aug 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Right? It's a conspiracy within a conspiracy.
> 
> heck anyone who disagrees with the conspiracy...is IN on the conspiracy!!!
> 
> WOW, I FINALLY TAPPED INTO GROWREBELS LOGIC BASE...IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW...


do you even know what the word conspiracy means....?


an agreement between 2 or more people to do something illegal....


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

Right...so CONGRATULATIONS!!! Everything is a conspiracy and nothing can be unproven.... NOW WHAT...... your solution would be a CONSPIRACY.... I can see the youtube now.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 8, 2009)

LIhop is much more feasible... but I think I explained the most likely scenario.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> LIhop is much more feasible... but I think I explained the most likely scenario.


 
Which page, I'll take a look?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

911 shocking documentary pt 6
[youtube]CA8Ru71vyvA&NR=1[/youtube]
This part talks about NORAD ... a pilot was order to fly out and check out the damage ... very last part of 5 beginning of 6.
:10 statement made by another "loony" can't make out the whole name looks like a Lt. Col Karen something.
*"No airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn what we expected to see was not evident."*
86 video tapes of the surrounding area were confiscated by the pentagon. In 2006 the freedom of information act force the pentagon to release some videos which are shown in the documentary.
Capt. Wittemberg gives his opinion.
The prize guy is back again with his analysis. He state it's impossible for the plane to make the turn it did at 800 Km per hour.
3:36 a Robin Hordon flight controller at Boston Center for 11 years, and flight instructor states the maneuver is impossible. A 757 is not design to do what that plane supposedly did according to Mr. Hordon.
4:22 another "loony" statement ..*.The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experience air traffic controllers, that, that was a military plane". (Danelle O'Brien air traffic controller from Dallas airport).*
4:30 prize guy again. Gives analysis.
5:28 another "loony" statement
*"I challenge any pilot, any pilot anywhere. Give him a Boeing 757 and tell him to do 400 knots 20 feet above the ground for a half a mile. CAN'T DO. It's aerodynamically impossible"*
(Can't make out his name, but he is a pilot and a astronautical engineer.)
Capt. Wittemberg and the prize guy states that the so called terrorist who supposedly flew the plane didn't have the experience, as stated by his instructor ... "he was a terrible pilot" he couldn't handle a Cesna 172.
6:40 prize guy ask how were they able to penetrate the most protected air space in the world ... which was one of my questions ... we all remember the dumb answer WH gave.  Contrary to what WH stated they talk about the air space as being restricted around the WH and the pentagon 7:00 in. They call it "P56". No unknown aircraft can go through there.
8:00 describes all the defense in place at the time yet none responded.
a Barbara Honegger, senior journalist, US Defense Department ask a good question. * Why didn't the pentagons anti aircraft missiles fire on the craft? * After all it's the most heavily protect building on the planet. Pay close attention to the last minute and a half of this part. Civilian planes don't have an IFF transponder.

911 shocking document pt 7
[youtube]D2Wl-NHB5o0&feature=related[/youtube]
Gore Vidal is in this part ... giving his opinion.
A pilot gives facts of what happens between the pilot and ATC. So people we know to be pilots give their view on what happened. Pay attention at 1:20.
2:15 prize guy states what we want.
3:10 Gore Vidal states that the one question they could not get the Air Force and NORAD to answer is why didn't the pilots go up automatically when the first planes were found to be hijacked? Same question I asked. Of course WH gave a lame excuse that didn't address the issue.
3:14 Pilot Robert Bowman decorated Viet Nam vet describes what happen when a plane goes off course ... contrary to what WH tried to spew out. This completely blow his bullshit out of the water.
4:45 French pilots describes how long it takes to scramble and what the planes are capable of doing. Those jet had plenty of time to intercept and stop those planes.
5:15 16 bases were in the area ... 911 official report: Air Defense had been notified late by the civil aviation FAA" ... yeah ... right ... 
5:30 Listen to what Mr. Hordon has to say about the FAA.
6:10 John Judge talks about air emergency and procedures. No order is needed to shoot down a plane. It's not an option according to Gore Vidal ... the plane must be shot down ... unless they are given an order to stand down.
7:15 protocol is discussed. Pay extremely close attention at 8:00.

911 shocking documentery pt 8
[youtube]DWy9QDZRj7k&NR=1[/youtube]
In this part Mr. Horton talks about the pentagon shifting protocol gears before and after 911.
1:00 listen to a Lella Costa describe what happen after Peal Harbor opposes to what happen after 911 ... listen carefully now. How much you want a bet the deniers can't explain ... well valid rational explanations ... 
1:35 the low down on the military commanders on that day. Pay real close attention to this shit. Then lets see some of you denier explain ... we all know you can't ... so don't worry about it.
3:15 they start talking about the hijackers. An interesting comment ... the Lockerbie plane crash took 2 years to get enough evidence together, but the FBI did it in one day. They questions how steel could molten yet paper survived.
Mohmmand Atta is discussed.

911 shocking doc pt 9
[youtube]QFHbh_GmYfM&feature=related[/youtube]
In this part they continue their discussion of the Atta and how things just don't add up concerning the hijackers.
Pay particular attention to flight times and time windows.
There is no evidence at all that these people the government claimed were the hijackers were on those planes at all.
1:50 Check it a couple of the so called hijackers a Mr. Al-Ghamd Ahmed Al-Nami shows up after 911 to protest the false accusation they were one of the hijackers. Both alive a well and pilots for Sandi Arabia Airlines. A third hijackers that was on the FBI list that was killed on flight 77 showed up alive in a CBS report working at an oil refinery.
5:00 the fake Bin Laden video is discussed. 
6:00 pay close attention to what the woman is saying about the translations.
8:00 real Bin Laden photos are compared to the fake photos and videos of Bin Laden put out by the US.

911 shocking doc pt 10
[youtube]Y5Ut5I7pa8Q&feature=related[/youtube]
The fake Al-Qaeda is discussed.

911 shocking doc pt 11
[youtube]xfZoOb7VVkY&feature=related[/youtube]
How the investigation was obstructed ...
Whistle blower Coleen Rowley of the FBI speaks as well. Ashcroft and Rumsfeld didn't want to know anything about terrorism back in August of 2001.

911 shocking doc the end
[youtube]e2M_prRX0mA&feature=related[/youtube]
Talks about all the warning that were given to the war criminals that were ignored.
One of the parents of the 911 murder victims speaks out.

This documentary ... that I paid lots of doe for by the way ...  pretty much goes over a lot of evidence concerning 911. If you have the time and you are one of those people that buy the bullshit story, take a look at this expensive documentary and say that you still buy the government bullshit.

Once again concrete evidence that 911 was an inside job. I've said it once I'll say it again ... you have to be a complete and total idiot to buy the governments bullshit.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

Would you like me to embarrass you and post how much money is being made off of Zeitgeist? It's a business.....wake up.

Pretty much every Arab thinks you full of it too...  They are IN on it!!!!    lawdy


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 8, 2009)

If you guys REALLY believe this shit you need to get off your ass sitting at a computer crying about it go to your closet and retrieve your rifle and head for washington cause you got an evil government to overthrow......lmao.!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> If you guys REALLY believe this shit you need to get off your ass sitting at a computer crying about it go to your closet and retrieve your rifle and head for washington cause you got an evil government to overthrow......lmao.!


Shhhh, they are in their bunker right now at ground zero. let's see if we can listen in......... (faint music of Milli Vanilli can be heard through the concrete.)


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> That guys name is BBC???


You mean your name is cracker jackass? As usual nothing to dispute the facts other than blowing it out your ass.



what... huh? said:


> LMAO
> That's funny... I don't care who ya are.


Ah yes we all know how easily amused you are especially since some of the pressure of being made a fool of is taken off. 



CrackerJax said:


> Quantity over quality eh?
> *OUCH!!!!!* Straight from the horses mouth


Do you really expect up to take an op ed from some asshole as Bin Laden's words? Nothing gives proof of an authentic message from Bin Laden. We are expected to take them at their word. Must be the same place that make you think we should take you at your word. Man ... you really are good at spewing worthless shit. Straight from the horses mouth! Bwaa ha ha ha. The 9th part of the documentary blow that shit clean away.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

I can get you the direct interview with the high ranking Al queda official if you wish.... Like I said, the rest of the world is laughing at you....most certainly it is pissing off the Arabs to no end since it was one of their very very few victories. You are raining on their parade. I agree.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Would you like me to embarrass you and post how much money is being made off of Zeitgeist? It's a business.....wake up.
> 
> Pretty much every Arab thinks you full of it too... They are IN on it!!!! lawdy


It won't embarrass me ... I didn't buy it ... anyone else reading this thread buy a copy of "Zeitgeist"? Come forward and help this dummy out.
Oh and the Arab think I'm full of shit ... where did they say that? Who said they were in on it? Caught once again making shit up ... I guess you just can't help yourself.




CrackerJax said:


> It was a ZOGBY poll..... OUCH!!!!! Same as yours GR....same as yours. OUCH!!!





CrackerJax said:


> I didn't say my poll was the same as yours..


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I can get you the direct interview with the high ranking Al queda official if you wish....


That don't mean shit ... the government is always saying they got shit from "high ranking Al-Qaeda officials" ... it's a lie. But none the less post it so I can prove it's bullshit.



CrackerJax said:


> Like I said, the rest of the world is laughing at you....


Yeah, yeah ... we all know what you say, and we all know you're full of shit, because we don't believe anything you say, yet you can't produce anything to prove the world is laughing at me. You just keep blowing shit out your ass. You deniers are easily made a fool of.




CrackerJax said:


> most certainly it is pissing off the Arabs to no end since it was one of their very very few victories. You are raining on their parade. I agree.


Blowing more shit out your ass ... of course you can't prove it but I guess it's one of those things you claim is a fact because you say so .... NOT. Bwaa ha ha ha ... made a fool of again. Man this is fun!


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> * certainly it is pissing off the Arabs to no end since it was one of their very very few victories. * You are raining on their parade. I agree.


Wow - take a gander at what you wrote. You assume ALL Arabs took delight in 9/11, basically calling all Muslims terrorists and suggest that ALL Muslims worldwide have 'very very few victories', which is horribly pretentious.

So tell me, why do you think so negatively of Arabs? Are you this prejudiced in other areas of your life? Hmmmm.....


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> If you guys REALLY believe this shit you need to get off your ass sitting at a computer crying about it go to your closet and retrieve your rifle and head for washington cause you got an evil government to overthrow......lmao.!


You haven't done jack shit other than shoot your mouth off. Just because you are too stupid to take action doesn't mean the people who are demanding the truth are. I'll settle for sending a certified letter with the evidence and put them on notice.
Yuk it up laughing boy ... but I don't see your ass disputing any of the evidence posted in this thread ... why? Because you obviously can't. So you might as well yuk it up ... that's the best you can do.kiss-ass


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 8, 2009)

Whatever man. Your gettin REALLY worked up about this. Don't burst a blood vessel or anything. Ya, putting them "on notice" with a letter will really show em. I bet a LETTER will stop them from murdering americans! 

Did you believe O.J. was innocent too?

Im not going to try to dispute anything in this thread cause you guys who believe this crap are too self brainwashed to believe anything rational at this point. Watching you foam at the mouth over this is basically just entertainment for sane people.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 8, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> Im not going to try to dispute anything in this thread cause you guys who believe this crap are too self brainwashed to believe anything rational at this point. Watching you foam at the mouth over this is basically just entertainment for sane people.


I bet you believe north vietnam really attacked a US navel ship to start the Vietnam War...

that killed 58,000 people.

Edit:

We do have an evil governmennt... look up the Tuskegee Experiment


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> Whatever man. Your gettin REALLY worked up about this. Don't burst a blood vessel or anything. Ya, putting them "on notice" with a letter will really show em. I bet a LETTER will stop them from murdering americans!


It's way more than what your dumb ass would do.



The Warlord said:


> Did you believe O.J. was innocent too?


Nothing to do with the issue at hand, but that's what all you deniers do ... can't dispute the facts so you go off in some tandem trying to look smart but failing completely.



The Warlord said:


> Im not going to try to dispute anything in this thread


We all know why ... because you can't ... nothing new there.



The Warlord said:


> cause you guys who believe this crap are too self brainwashed


Yeah ... we were "brainwashed" with scientific facts ... what's your excuse?



The Warlord said:


> to believe anything rational at this point.


It's pretty obvious you don't have any rational points to make. All you can do is laugh and mock ... that's the best you can do.



The Warlord said:


> Watching you foam at the mouth over this is basically just entertainment for sane people.


And making an idiot like you look like one is extremely entertaining as well. So keep yuking it up funny boy ... we are all laughing at how stupid you are, and your inability to dispute the facts.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 8, 2009)

Neveer heard anything about an attack on a US warship to start the vietnam war.

Yes, I agree that the tuskegee deal was horrible. 

I'm not debating the fact that are government is corrupt and that we get further away from the constitutional rights we are suposed to have every day. I just don't believe those buildings were brought down by the U.S. government. It was done by muslim Jihadists/terrorists.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 8, 2009)

Tuskegee is disgusting.

The first attack at gulf of Tonkin did happen.

The second attack they thought was happening... a sonar operator heard wale farts or something and they launched a shitload of ordinance at phantom subs. The only thing dishonest that happened was when NSA came to the conclusion that there was no second attack, they hushed it up.



PadawanBater said:


> Which page, I'll take a look?




https://www.rollitup.org/2861971-post1041.html


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 8, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> It's way more than what your dumb ass would do.
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with the issue at hand, but that's what all you deniers do ... can't dispute the facts so you go off in some tandem trying to look smart but failing completely.
> ...


I don't agree with you so I'm an idiot? Ok now you hurt my feelings!!! Still laughing out loud though bro. I don't need to dispute things that are not facts but only misguided opinions. you keep writing those letters telling them that if they don't stop killing americans and covering it up you'll, well, keep writing them letters about it, i guess. 
Cause if all your gonna do is write a letter to complain about this you might as well just live with it and keep quiet cause your pen isn't nearly as might as their sword. They couldnt possibly give a shit about how many letters you write them. Uprise! Revolt! That is what stops Tyranny, not hate mail.


Later Gator!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 8, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> It won't embarrass me ... I didn't buy it ... anyone else reading this thread buy a copy of "Zeitgeist"? Come forward and help this dummy out.
> Oh and the Arab think I'm full of shit ... where did they say that? Who said they were in on it? Caught once again making shit up ... I guess you just can't help yourself.


Since the Arabs totally believe Al queda hit the towers..... it is sort of self evident that they think deludes like you are off your rocker. You provide more proof of western stupidity and weakness. So I guess it evens out for them in the end. We unfortunately are left with you guys... 

Hang on to your delusions if you wish....but you are starting to look like a bible thumper.....


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 8, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> I just don't believe those buildings were brought down by the U.S. government. It was done by muslim Jihadists/terrorists.


 You have NO proof what so ever that it happen that way ...NONE other than what the government has told you.



The Warlord said:


> I don't agree with you so I'm an idiot?


No ... you disregard undeniable scientific facts ... that's why you are an idiot.



The Warlord said:


> Ok now you hurt my feelings!!!


Aw ... poor baby ... 



The Warlord said:


> Still laughing out loud though bro.


No surprises there since that's all you are capable of doing. Most deniers do yuk it up when they can't dispute the facts ... like a nervous laugh.



The Warlord said:


> I don't need to dispute things that are not facts but only misguided opinions.


Yeah folks that another mo of the deniers ... can't deny the facts so they claim it's nothing more than opinion. Notice the dummy doesn't distinguish what the "opinions" are ... I wonder why?   



The Warlord said:


> you keep writing those letters telling them that if they don't stop killing americans and covering it up you'll, well, keep writing them letters about it, i guess.


Like I said ... still more than what your dumb ass would do. You'd just yuk it up and pretend nothing is happening. That's how you seem to deal with things.


The Warlord said:


> Cause if all your gonna do is write a letter to complain about this you might as well just live with it and keep quiet cause your pen isn't nearly as might as their sword.


And you might as well accept that some people won't sit on their ass in front of a computer and yuk it up pretending they know something they haven't a clue of ... like you.



The Warlord said:


> They couldnt possibly give a shit about how many letters you write them. Uprise! Revolt! That is what stops Tyranny, not hate mail.
> Later Gator!


You sure do worry about shit you are a coward to do yourself ... I wonder why? 
Bu-bye ... don't let the door hit ya were the good lord split ya. kiss-ass



CrackerJax said:


> Since the Arabs totally believe Al queda hit the towers.....


Source? Link? oh that right because you say so right! Bwaa ha ha ha! Caught blowing it out you ass again.



CrackerJax said:


> it is sort of self evident that they think deludes like you are off your rocker.


He said as he blew more shit out his ass. Bwaa ha ha ha. You certainly love to make shit up!



CrackerJax said:


> You provide more proof of western stupidity and weakness.


And you keep providing proof that deniers are crackerjackasses Bwaa ha ha ha.



CrackerJax said:


> So I guess it evens out for them in the end. We unfortunately are left with you guys...


Yeah we say the same shit about you! 



CrackerJax said:


> Hang on to your delusions if you wish....but you are starting to look like a bible thumper.....


You and the rest of the deniers are the only ones with delusions. You can't dispute anything so you just claim you do ... bwaa ha ha ha ... and that is hilarious! 




CrackerJax said:


> It was a ZOGBY poll..... OUCH!!!!! Same as yours GR....same as yours. OUCH!!!





CrackerJax said:


> I didn't say my poll was the same as yours..


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 8, 2009)

And now I'm a coward? First i've heard of it. Ok, go back to ranting incoherently and posting youtube crap. Your starting to bore me with the personal attacks.


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> certainly it is pissing off the Arabs to no end since it was one of their very very few victories. You are raining on their parade. I agree.


Wow - take a gander at what you wrote. You assume ALL Arabs took delight in 9/11, basically calling all Muslims terrorists and suggest that ALL Muslims worldwide have 'very very few victories', which is horribly pretentious.

So tell me, why do you think so negatively of Arabs? Are you this prejudiced in other areas of your life? Hmmmm.....

No response?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 8, 2009)

You know that is something I never really understood. Why did the SS/CIA/FBI take all video evidence of the pentagon crash? They didn't take any of the Tower videos that anyone made, yet took 86 of the pentagon. Something fishy about all that too, if a plane did fly into it, wouldn't you want everyone to see it so as to bolster your own arguments? There are so many unanswered little pieces of the puzzle.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 8, 2009)

The internal structure of the pentagon is not common knowledge. They also didn't want it being used for propaganda as it is our fortress. They also rebuilt it in a month. It is an issue of symbolism mostly.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 8, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> Wow - take a gander at what you wrote. You assume ALL Arabs took delight in 9/11, basically calling all Muslims terrorists and suggest that ALL Muslims worldwide have 'very very few victories', which is horribly pretentious.
> 
> So tell me, why do you think so negatively of Arabs? Are you this prejudiced in other areas of your life? Hmmmm.....
> 
> No response?


Was probably all the celebrating in the streets. They really do hate us over there you know... Most seem to feel we had it coming. A lot of Americans too frankly.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> The internal structure of the pentagon is not common knowledge. They also didn't want it being used for propaganda as it is our fortress. They also rebuilt it in a month. It is an issue of symbolism mostly.


HAHA what the hell would one learn about the "Internal Structure" that would IN ANY way affect anything? Like "hey i know that there is a crossbeam of metal through the building, if I can crash a plane in there, and have the fuel splash all over, maybe I can single handedly cause the whole building to instantaneously demolish itself into Dust" Is this what they don't want you to see?  Why would there be aftermath pictures all over the place showing every angle of the inside. What a terribly contrived Lie that is. LOL they don't want anyone to see the inside, but they release hundreds of aftermath pics to the public that shows the INSIDES. 

Why use the videos when you have high quality government pictures that show the destruction for your propaganda? Issue of Symbolism my ass, there is something on those videos they do not want the public to see.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 8, 2009)

What they don't want you to see probably has to do with the underground portion... You really have to think of it like an iceberg. You have no idea how large the complex is by what you see. 

Who the fuck really knows. It is the headquarters of the DOD. It is sensitive shit.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 8, 2009)

Sure and I can understand that, as you are aware I was in the Military myself and they come up with some crazy senseless shit sometimes. But you would think that they could show the airplane coming in and hitting the building and edit the rest out. I worked on some of the video editing of the Desert Storm FLIR Bombing videos. We edited all sorts of crap out, why couldn't they do that? They gotta be hiding something. Why not just shut up all the "Truthers" on this subject once and for all.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 8, 2009)

So... if you had some video released by the pentagon with digital editing... what direction do you suppose Grow would go with that?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 8, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> So... if you had some video released by the pentagon with digital editing... what direction do you suppose Grow would go with that?



oh I know as well as you do what would happen, but fact is they aren't releasing anything, its all a "Secret" forever now that the State Secrets Protection Act - S. 2533 lets them do that.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 9, 2009)

You think it is more likely that they used three planes and one missile... because... ahhh fuck becauses... It is more likely to you that they used three planes and one missile and that is what they are hiding? Why use an ICBM on a sunny day in front of hundreds of witnesses? The pentagon is a busy place. I295 loops around the front side, 1 block from an international airport... it is a stupid idea. 


Or is it more likely that they are hiding their associations with a terrorist network out doing our dirty work against the 2nd and 3rd most powerful nations on earth, and got double crossed? What are the chances that the perfect cover of a common enemy does more good for us? What if...

What if we DO negotiate with terrorists?

What if we provide them intel, and equipment, and western thinking? I firmly believe a guy in a cave came up with smashing airplanes into buildings. It is pretty fucking basic. Do I think that a guy came up with the idea of guerrilla franchise? That is western thinking. Run your own cell. Recruit angry disenfranchised youth. Give them purpose... be your own boss, call the shots... free agency... THAT is America baby. What if we used all that psyop shit to try and manipulate these franchise cells into doing our bidding, while making them believe they were doing it for their own ideology? We feed you detailed info on who to hit, when and how... we provide you cover, cross chatter, and materials and training... and you don't hit us. We buy, you fly.

Of course we couldn't really let them spread like wildfire... we would have to contain them. Maybe they caught us... containing. Maybe that is why we were drilling these scenarios... because we knew SOMETHING was coming. We were drilling all kinds of shit that month... chem, bio, hijacking... we had a lot of credible threats... and STILL couldn't stop it. That is why you suppress the info... because we knew it was coming and couldn't do shit about it. It shows how weak an open society really is. We freak out, and bad guys gain morale. For us it had to be a total shock... no other way to handle it.


Enough conjecture. My point is... this seem much more believable to me. That is how our government works in the dark places... we do nasty, through others, far away from cameras. We use small groups who know as little as possible, and aren't likely to piece it together. We don't do "the big show". We work in shadows, in small numbers, in foreign places.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 9, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You think it is more likely that they used three planes and one missile... because... ahhh fuck becauses... It is more likely to you that they used three planes and one missile and that is what they are hiding? Why use an ICBM on a sunny day in front of hundreds of witnesses? The pentagon is a busy place. I295 loops around the front side, 1 block from an international airport... it is a stupid idea.
> 
> 
> Or is it more likely that they are hiding their associations with a terrorist network out doing our dirty work against the 2nd and 3rd most powerful nations on earth, and got double crossed? What are the chances that the perfect cover of a common enemy does more good for us? What if...
> ...





[youtube]xzORu1dqEE0[/youtube]






for NoDrama - see it's a movie called "*stop making sense*". i feel what..huh?'s post makes sense so i am sarcastically telling him to stop it. i included the video about wartime because we are at war. clever, eh?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 9, 2009)

FDD... Do you use molasses? What strain(s) are you growing? You still give nitro/phos during flower... or do you switch to bloom booster or some such nonsense? If I put red and blue food coloring in my nute bath will it make my weed all purply?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 9, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> FDD... Do you use molasses? What strain(s) are you growing? You still give nitro/phos during flower... or do you switch to bloom booster or some such nonsense? If I put red and blue food coloring in my nute bath will it make my weed all purply?




911 was an inside job. obama sucks. waaaaah


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 9, 2009)

I found the idea of hijacking the 9/11 thread darkly ironic.


It was just meant to say I get it.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Aug 9, 2009)

Y'know Cracker put up a good view on the USS Cole, compared to why we didnt shoot down the planes. "Don't fire unless fired upon" rules of engagement and all that is what I gather from that respect. Who knows where this number 4 plane wouldve hit, but thankfully, no other loss of life due to that crash, although wrong to say Im sorry, I dont mean to disrespect, but if number 4 wouldve hit somewhere, would not be too nice eh.



Damnit Im always late to the party,
I use 15-30-15 miracle grow in bloom.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 9, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I found the idea of hijacking the 9/11 thread darkly ironic.
> 
> 
> It was just meant to say I get it.



i'm have been laughing a lot lately.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 9, 2009)

You are entirely too polite to be in this thread. When grow rebel comes off his meds and wakes up, he is gonna come in here and spit in your mouth... and he has hepatitis. 


We weren't close enough to shoot down the first 3. People like to think that we have fighter jets covering every square inch of the country that can pop at a moments notice... but the truth is that there were only 14 jets covering the whole of the US. Our "ready" jet at Andrews was not ready... the pilots were on a training exercise instead, and upon return were sent directly out, with about ten mins of fuel left, which meant the closest jets had to come in from Otis AFB in Mass (pre 9/11 jets were not allowed to go supersonic for intercept over land). ATC knew there was a possible hijacking because a stewardess called in from an airphone at 8:21 and within 16 minutes had NORAD on the phone (8:37). Within 9 minutes two f15s are airborne (8:46). Within 40 seconds, 11 hit the tower. 9:03 flight 175 hits wtc 2, and simultaneously NORAD is alerted that 175 has been hijacked. 9:13 f15s head to Manhattan. 9:37 a plane hits the pentagon.


We could very well have shot down number 4... but you are correct. It is a good thing it didn't make its destination.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 9, 2009)

Though... it is a little suspicious, the circumstances of the training excercises...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 9, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> And now I'm a coward? First i've heard of it. Ok, go back to ranting incoherently and posting youtube crap. Your starting to bore me with the personal attacks.


Oh yes of course ... all you deniers can come up with is "I'm ranting incoherently" ... yet you seem to be at a lost to show where I'm ranting ... it's pretty obvious you can't so you just say it's "crap" with nothing to back why it's "crap" ... we are to take it as a valid argument ... you bore me with your lack of evidence to refute what I posted. Run along now. You obviously can't handle this conversation.



fdd2blk said:


> 911 was an inside job. obama sucks. waaaaah


You are implying all we do it bitch and cry ... you are wrong completely and totally wrong. You can ridicule me as must as you like, but NEVER imply that I just whine. I don't. None of you deniers can ridicule me into not speaking out or do all I can to address an injustice. The death of tens of thousands, and the criminals behind it still walking free doesn't bother you ... that's fine, but don't try to stand in my way to do what I can to see that they are held accountable. Nuff said.



what... huh? said:


> You are entirely too polite to be in this thread. When grow rebel comes off his meds and wakes up, he is gonna come in here and spit in your mouth... and he has hepatitis.


You deniers just can't help shit when you can't refute the facts. You need to be on meds with your wakco bullshit you've put out. Like this shit here ... 


what... huh? said:


> We weren't close enough to shoot down the first 3.
> People like to think that we have fighter jets covering every square inch of the country that can pop at a moments notice... but the truth is that there were only 14 jets covering the whole of the US. Our "ready" jet at Andrews was not ready... the pilots were on a training exercise instead, and upon return were sent directly out, with about ten mins of fuel left, which meant the closest jets had to come in from Otis AFB in Mass (pre 9/11 jets were not allowed to go supersonic for intercept over land). ATC knew there was a possible hijacking because a stewardess called in from an airphone at 8:21 and within 16 minutes had NORAD on the phone (8:37). Within 9 minutes two f15s are airborne (8:46). Within 40 seconds, 11 hit the tower. 9:03 flight 175 hits wtc 2, and simultaneously NORAD is alerted that 175 has been hijacked. 9:13 f15s head to Manhattan. 9:37 a plane hits the pentagon.


Wrong again ... nothing new there ... this video I posted back on page 108 post #1072 proves you wrong.
911 shocking document pt 7
[youtube]D2Wl-NHB5o0&feature=related[/youtube]
It gives evidence that those jets had plenty of time to intercept all planes ... unless they were ordered to stand down ...
Folks you remember the first video TOL posted back on page 92 post #911 Those planes were ordered to stand down. Caught blowing it out your ass again! All too easy.



what... huh? said:


> We could very well have shot down number 4... but you are correct. It is a good thing it didn't make its destination.


It was probably suppose to hit WTC 7, to cover the demo, but they did it anyway ... why waste a good demo?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 9, 2009)

why you gotta call me names? you don't even know where i stand. 


stand in your way? if that were the case i'd close this thread.



hahahahaha


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 9, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> why you gotta call me names?


I didn't ... I was addressing all deniers ... but if you fall into that category then I was.



fdd2blk said:


> you don't even know where i stand.


I can't argue with that ... where do you stand? 



fdd2blk said:


> stand in your way? if that were the case i'd close this thread.hahahahaha


I'm referring to the ridicule and those that have told me writing letters is bullshit. I'm not saying you personally. I'm speaking generally.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Aug 9, 2009)

Wow, lots of pots calling kettles black, lots of insults.

Yup, sounds like RIU politics.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 9, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I didn't ... I was addressing all deniers ... but if you fall into that category then I was.
> 
> 
> I can't argue with that ... where do you stand?
> ...



i think the government was in on it. i don't think they pulled it all off. they maybe helped support the "enemy", even turned a blind eye to what was going on. maybe they even know it was happening. but they didn't load the building with explosives. i've worked internally in huge skyscrapers in SF and it would be a MAJOR feat to pull something like that off without joe office boy seeing _something_.

i think if the government had NO IDEA of any of it then we are screwed just as well. 

i think the truth is gone forever. 

i have a hard time grasping the hate and anger. once, for a little while i was an angry person. i got tired fast. throughout the history of human life we have been killing each other. it's not some silly argument on an internet forum. it's war and death. i think a lot of what goes on here is disrespectful and belittling to those who have died. not just this forum, but this whole world. the news is glamorized with death and greed. will it ever end?

if not, then i'm right on track. i will kill them all when the shit goes down. i don't own a gun but i will slice someones neck to get one. 

my Dr is gonna be pissed i'm sharing.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 9, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i think the government was in on it. i don't think they pulled it all off. they maybe helped support the "enemy", even turned a blind eye to what was going on. maybe they even know it was happening. but they didn't load the building with explosives. i've worked internally in huge skyscrapers in SF and it would be a MAJOR feat to pull something like that off without joe office boy seeing _something_.


Being from SF I'm sure you've seen some kind of construction going on in the downtown area I've worked construction for 20 years now ... worked on a skyscraper... in Cleveland some kind of construction goes on all the time downtown ... they could easily have put in those charges under the guise of "construction work" "remodeling" joe office boy would think nothing off it especially with all the "security" around. Besides they found traces of nano thermite in the dust ... some one had to put it there. It couldn't have gotten there naturally.



fdd2blk said:


> i think if the government had NO IDEA of any of it then we are screwed just as well.


Whether they did or not ... we're screwed.



fdd2blk said:


> i think the truth is gone forever.


Fortunately there are plenty of folks like me that will never let the truth die. Haven't you notice all the reports I've been finding? I mean if you go back and look through the thread you will see there where periods of time when I had nothing to report, but lately there have been so many video and articles that I have something almost every day. This is an indication to me that there are enough of us to keep the Light of Truth alive.



fdd2blk said:


> i have a hard time grasping the hate and anger.


I don't hate or am angery at any of the deniers ... I just think they are dummies when faced with facts of undeniable scientific evidence. Most don't even want a real investigation. They settle for the fake commission bullshit where no one testified under oath and important evidence was ignored. Now that's stupid.



fdd2blk said:


> once, for a little while i was an angry person. i got tired fast.


Gave me high blood pressure ... my heart got tired of it ... anger is a waste for me ... I take action and voice my opinion and post information to back my statements. Beats the hell out of being angry.



fdd2blk said:


> throughout the history of human life we have been killing each other.


I know  over stupid shit too.



fdd2blk said:


> it's not some silly argument on an internet forum. it's war and death. i think a lot of what goes on here is disrespectful and belittling to those who have died. not just this forum, but this whole world. the news is glamorized with death and greed. will it ever end?


I don't know if it will ever end ... but I feel I must do my part to address the crimes committed and the lives lost. For me it's like a commandment from GOD ... if I can do something to help ... do it ... if I can't ... well then ... don't worry about it, because God has probably assign others to handle it.



fdd2blk said:


> if not, then i'm right on track. i will kill them all when the shit goes down. i don't own a gun but i will slice someones neck to get one.


I do have a gun ... and I pray I will never have to point it at another human being. But if I am force to fight ... I rather sit down, smoke one and talk it over ... but if I have to ... I will.



fdd2blk said:


> my Dr is gonna be pissed i'm sharing.


But, Im so glad you did ...  besides ... you don't have to tell your Dr.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 9, 2009)

Ok GR... I will engage you if you like. Because you are hyper manic, I have to set a couple of really simple reasonable ground rules.

1. This will be a dialogue, not a monologue. One of us will present something, the other will refute it and NOT MOVE ON until it is agreed that either one side is correct, or there is not enough evidence either way to come to an agreement.

That means when I make a point about flight 77 you do not jump to fireproofing on wtc 5. It also means ONE VIDEO at a time, unless they are very brief. There is generally so much information in a single video which requires explanation... it eats a lot of my time to demonstrate and explain the false premises... as you will see in a minute below.

2. If you want to quote multiple sources, put up the link. Reading through 300 miles of quotes in the odd way you present partial information is not only annoying to read, but often out of context. I know how to read, I don't need you to translate it for me. This really goes back to 1. One thing at a time.

Your video "proving" they had enough time to reach the planes makes a number of errors. I will address each by time frame. 

0:24 "...that something hit the pentagon. To this day nobody knows what it was."
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

There are about 140 eyewitness accounts there from 9/11, with sources, of people who saw the fucking plane hit. Traffic on 395 was at a standstill. Pentagon city is right across 395, as is crystal city. I lived there for 15 years... including 9/11/01.







0:38 "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77"
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

1:58 "If indeed 77 went off of radar for 36 minutes, it was not flying... or it was so low... that it was not able to be picked up" cut "so if it landed... in a remote field somewhere, that would explain why it disappeared, other than that... there is very little explanation."

The dude answers his own question. It was below 800 ft. It also didn't disappear for 36 minutes. Indianapolis lost it, it appeared 9 minutes later on Dulles screen... where they had to discern its primary from some 4000 others since it didn't have a transponder. 

I challenge you to land a 757 in a remote field somewhere, and take off another one. Btw... where does that plane go? Disassembled and put onto trucks?

3:34 "Any time a plane goes off course... or loses radio communication... or loses it's transponder... any time ANY of those three things happen, it is supposed to be intercepted.

Blatantly false... maybe he means that HE thinks they should be... but that is not accurate.
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0604.html

Regardless... SOP on NORDO/NOTAP became irrelevant when the stewardess called in with a possible hijacking. They called into supervisors and surrounding ATC, and then called NORAD... on the telephone... because unlike the Italian military command console (the second most advanced in the world next to Belgium) that they showed you, most of our ATC tower equipment was built in the 50s and 60s. The reason Belgium has the most advanced system in the world, is because IBM developed it for us... and the new FAA administrator pulled the plug on the program (late 90's) because the airlines were tanking and he didn't want to spend the money. This happens about every 6 years... FAA starts an update program... then the new administration comes in a kills it. There is a lot of money involved. The status of our ATC equipment is a fucking horror show. Again... I spent a lot of time in towers... I don't think most people really understand what we are working with.



4:52 "Military jets travel much faster than commercial airlines" 5:03 "This airplane does mach 2.05"
Before 9/11 military jets were prohibited from breaking the sound barrier over land EVEN ON INTERCEPT. That is 761 mph. The 757 will do over 600 mph.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/757.html

6:36 and beyond "A lot of people say that they have to wait for the president to give an order to shoot down a plane"
Strawman


Your video is full of inaccuracies, strawmen, and conjecture.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 9, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> 0:24 "...that something hit the pentagon. To this day nobody knows what it was."


Okay then ... how do you explain this video I posted way back on page 80 post 793
9/11 Video Clips Corporate News Would Rather Not Show You
[youtube]ckGn8p5k6q8&feature=related[/youtube]
Why didn't they see the "fucking plane"? Explain that.
And I also posted this video check out the run down. and what the pilot told her commander ... how to you explain that? Why didn't she see anything she had an excellent view.
There were 86 cameras there to proof it was a "fucking plane" why did the pentagon confiscate them?
Why do experience pilots say it is impossible to get a 757 to maneuver the way it did to hit the pentagon ... how can a 35m. aircraft make a 5m hole? So much for your people saw the "fucking plane". Far too many unanswered questions that can only be answered with a real investigation. 
 


what... huh? said:


> 0:38 "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77"
> http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf


Yep the government states that, but they are merely ... like the guy said making assumptions ... they haven't really provided any real proof. Instead they cover up shit, which caused more questions to go unanswered. Since the government never did a real investigation and has been caught covering up evidence ... I would say it is safe to assume they are blowing it out their ass.



what... huh? said:


> 1:58 "If indeed 77 went off of radar for 36 minutes, it was not flying... or it was so low... that it was not able to be picked up" cut "so if it landed... in a remote field somewhere, that would explain why it disappeared, other than that... there is very little explanation."
> The dude answers his own question. It was below 800 ft.


You are missing his point ... he was commenting on how unlikely it was for the plane to fly that low ... or land ... we know it didn't land ... and according to him and other experience pilots you can't fly a 757 that low. In the same video I posted.



what... huh? said:


> It also didn't disappear for 36 minutes. Indianapolis lost it, it appeared 9 minutes later on Dulles screen... where they had to discern its primary from some 4000 others since it didn't have a transponder.


Source? Link? and since we know the 911 commission went way out of the way to cover up the truth ... info from them can be highly questionable.



what... huh? said:


> I challenge you to land a 757 in a remote field somewhere, and take off another one. Btw... where does that plane go? Disassembled and put onto trucks?


We can find the answer to that with a real investigation now can't we ... 



what... huh? said:


> 3:34 "Any time a plane goes off course... or loses radio communication... or loses it's transponder... any time ANY of those three things happen, it is supposed to be intercepted.
> 
> Blatantly false... maybe he means that HE thinks they should be... but that is not accurate.
> http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0604.html


He said three things ... your link only covers two way radio communication failure. Not to mention this man is an experience ATC with 11 years and a pilot. How many years have you had as a ATC and pilot? I highly doubt you would know more than him.



what... huh? said:


> Regardless... SOP on NORDO/NOTAP became irrelevant when the stewardess called in with a possible hijacking. They called into supervisors and surrounding ATC, and then called NORAD... on the telephone...


Source? Link?



what... huh? said:


> 4:52 "Military jets travel much faster than commercial airlines" 5:03 "This airplane does mach 2.05"
> Before 9/11 military jets were prohibited from breaking the sound barrier over land EVEN ON INTERCEPT. That is 761 mph. The 757 will do over 600 mph.
> http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/757.html


Um ... why are you posting spec on the 757? What does that have to do with your claim about intercepts? Show us where you got the information about military jets being prohibited from breaking the sound barrier even on intercept. Plus it doesn't prove that those military jets didn't have time to reach those planes.



what... huh? said:


> 6:36 and beyond "A lot of people say that they have to wait for the president to give an order to shoot down a plane"
> Strawman


Strawman? What the hell does that mean? And why didn't you finish the man sentence that it wasn't true? Calling it "strawman" doesn't prove it's inaccurate.



what... huh? said:


> Your video is full of inaccuracies, strawmen, and conjecture.


No it's not ... you haven't posted anything to prove the video is inaccurate. Your witness post is questionable because of the video where no plane was seen, plus the statement of the pilot that didn't see the plane. You tried to twist the Capt. statement when he was describing how unlikely the plane did as claimed. Your FAA link didn't cover the three things Hordon talked about. So wrong again. You posted boeing spec which have nothing to do with military intercepts. So since you were unable to give a valid argument you once again claim it to be inaccurate when it is you who is.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 9, 2009)

*15 questions 9/11 truthers now need to answer*






One of the standard claims of 9/11 truthers is that they are merely sceptical individuals with a healthy and understandable desire not to swallow US government propaganda at face value. The mantra just asking questions allows them to pose as wary and intelligent souls too accustomed to the concept of duplicity in high places to accept the official story of Al Qaedas role in planning and perpetrating the largest mass casualty terrorist attack in modern history. It also allows them to adopt an indignant tone when dealing with their critics, and to conflate attempts by debunkers to undermine their claims with both unquestioning acceptance of an official cover-up (irrespective of whether the debunker happens to be a supporter of the current US administration or not) and a systematic effort to deprive them of freedom of speech. It goes without saying that in the process the truthers set up two straw-men for them to knock down, but then theyre not very good at dealing with tougher critics. 
The just asking questions approach has three further advantages to those of a paranoid mindset and a less than scrupulous approach to evidence and facts (if George Orwell were alive today, hed appreciate the irony of serial disinformation merchants like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin posing as members of a truth movement, given their fast and loose approach to the historical record and scientific fact). Firstly, conspiracy theorists know that mud sticks: if you can make an accusation against an individual or group through innuendo and sly hints the latter has the hard task of proving the calumnies against them to be false. Film buffs will no doubt recall George C. Scotts performance as the malevolent prosecutor in _Anatomy of a Murder_, and his repeated question to the defendant Ben Gazzara: Exactly when did you stop beating your wife? This approach sums up truther debating tactics nicely. 
Secondly, the claim that one is just asking questions is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the official theory. Why worry if the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions or not? Why worry if the hijackers were patsies or ghosts? Why worry if the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a jumbo jet piloted by remote control? Why worry if the passengers of the four planes are alive or not? With one or two exceptions (notably Michael Ruppert), 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else) slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens - in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to produce a real theory about 9/11 being an inside job which combines motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence. Deep down, they know that once they venture into specific claims their case will be torn to shreds, and they will be exposed as ignorant frauds.
Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they wont reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate story from _Prison Planet_, _9/11 Blogger_, _What Really Happened_ or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want: The FBI said there were no phone calls from AA77!; 4,000 Jews didnt turn up to work at the WTC on 9/11!; Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC7! And so on and so forth. 
Any genuine sceptic dealing with truthers - whether online or in the flesh - then has to (1) work out what the hell his or her interlocutor is talking about, and (2) ask themselves how exactly they made this claim, and if it has any substance. Anyone lacking either patience or detailed knowledge of the events of 11th September 2001 may be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Debunkers are left with the time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information, before they can actually verify the facts for themselves. In short, the truther can throw out a red herring or an outright distortion in a matter of minutes, leaving it up to other net users to take the time and trouble to verify their origin and accuracy.
Fortunately, yeoman work has been done by scores of individuals to actually put the record straight. Pat and James from _Screw Loose Change_, Mark Roberts, 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11 and 9/11 Guide in particular provide a valuable resource. The James Randi forum is particularly useful in that it provides commentators with specialist knowledge - military veterans, pilots, flight engineers, physicists, architects, forensic experts etc - with a platform to expose the anti-scientific claptrap and historical illiteracy of the truthers. This is the main reason why the JREF and its commentators arouse such hatred from the 9/11 conspiracy ghouls.
Its time to turn the tables on the truthers. Rather than accept a situation in which the nutjobs and kooks who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies can make their accusations willy-nilly, it is high time that their critics decided that _they_ can just ask questions too. This particular debunker has decided that maybe, just for once, the onus for actually demonstrating the validity of their theories on the basis of systematic and critical analysis of the evidence belongs to the truthers, not to those who wish to expose their fallacies. As someone whose academic bias is based on history, I would like to pose the following challenge to the conspiracy-mongers:
*Lets take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop asking questions, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters.*

*(1)* On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an interview in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, _Ghost Wars_, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, _Al Qaeda_, p.197; Daniel Byman, _Deadly Connections_, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Talibans main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. *If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massouds assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?*
*(2)* Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latters frustration (See Coll, _passim_). *If 9/11 was a false flag operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didnt the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA? *
*(3)* Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, _The Looming Tower_, pp.356-35. *Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?*
*(4)* In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, _Air Power Against Terror_; Bob Woodward, _Bush At War_).* If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan?* Why was one not prepared beforehand?
*(5)* We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were patsies, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 bogus Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. *We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity?* Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?
*(6)* Following on from this point, *if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved?* What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their countrys name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran? 
*(7)* Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, _Taliban_, _passim_). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USAs invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. *Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?*
*(* Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (dancing Israelis, etc.) are correct,* can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil?* Since 1967, the mainstay of Israels security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a false flag attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
*(9)* Following on from this, *assuming that the five dancing Israelis story isnt a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public?* And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?
*(10)* *If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted?* Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
*(11)* Assuming that Niaz Naiks account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then *where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001?* And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
*(12)* We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). *We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?*
*(13)* If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? *Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - **which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins** - was genuine?*
*(14)* *If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania?* Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
*(15)* *Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of false flag attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed truth-seekers (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people?* Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their theories on radio, television, in print and online?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 9, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Okay then ... how do you explain this video I posted way back on page 80 post 793
> 9/11 Video Clips Corporate News Would Rather Not Show You
> [youtube]ckGn8p5k6q8&feature=related[/youtube]
> Why didn't they see the "fucking plane"? Explain that.



LMFAO... "There was no second plane... it was bomb... we saw whole thing... who told you it was second plane? It was bomb." 

We all watched the second plane hit. That is how your "exposed" video starts. LMFAO. Had to pause and laugh. You aren't seriously suggesting that the plane everyone saw live didn't hit?

Second guy... "no large pieces of plane... no fuselage... no tail section... just small pieces that you can pick up in your hand..."

Pieces of plane.


I don't need to explain why someone who wasn't there didn't see something that literally hundreds of people did. It defies logic. You defy logic.





GrowRebel said:


> And I also posted this video check out the run down. and what the pilot told her commander ... how to you explain that? Why didn't she see anything she had an excellent view.
> There were 86 cameras there to proof it was a "fucking plane" why did the pentagon confiscate them?



I explained that a couple of posts ago. What did I tell you about one video at a time?




GrowRebel said:


> Why do experience pilots say it is impossible to get a 757 to maneuver the way it did to hit the pentagon ... how can a 35m. aircraft make a 5m hole? So much for your people saw the "fucking plane". Far too many unanswered questions that can only be answered with a real investigation.



I haven't seen any commercial pilots who said any such thing. My ex-wife is a commercial pilot. Maybe I can have her give you a ring and explain some things to you. 
 



GrowRebel said:


> Yep the government states that, but they are merely ... like the guy said making assumptions ... they haven't really provided any real proof.



You have to actually read the evidence I provide you. They have the flight recorder, which has unique identifiers, and 23 hours of recorded data which corresponds to the planes flight/tracking records. They also have engine parts, which are all serial etched. They have positive identification of the airplane and its parts. The claim is simply false. Get that? FALSE CLAIM. The claim was not that they made it up... or forged it... the claim was that "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77". FALSE CLAIM. NTSB POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED 77. 




GrowRebel said:


> Did you read the report? The parts
> 
> Instead they cover up shit, which caused more questions to go unanswered. Since the government never did a real investigation and has been caught covering up evidence ... I would say it is safe to assume they are blowing it out their ass.
> 
> ...


How do you think planes land? That is a serious question. Planes can fly at any altitude with enough thrust. Air density is the same at 30 feet as 1500. 



GrowRebel said:


> Source? Link? and since we know the 911 commission went way out of the way to cover up the truth ... info from them can be highly questionable.


YOU "know" they covered things up. That is not "factual". It is your belief. It cannot be a premise applied to MY beliefs. As to a source... I posted it already. The NTSB flight recorder.



GrowRebel said:


> We can find the answer to that with a real investigation now can't we ...
> 
> 
> He said three things ... your link only covers two way radio communication failure. Not to mention this man is an experience ATC with 11 years and a pilot. How many years have you had as a ATC and pilot? I highly doubt you would know more than him.


He said ANY of those three things require an intercept. I have demonstrated that this is incorrect. I don't need to prove all three to prove that he doesn't have a fucking clue what he is talking about. It takes a lot of my time to acquire this shit... you understand? I don't just google "9/11 conspiracy". I already know this information from experience, but have to go dig this shit up for you... I have disproven this "11 year ATC" witness as bullshit. I have been in a plane with a dead transponder. I have been in a NORDO plane. I have been over restricted airspace in DC. I have never been intercepted. I know what the fuck I am talking about... and I have PROVEN this guy is full of shit. I am not going to waste 3 more hours disproving ALL of what he says, because I don't have to. FTR I have 20 years in the right seat. Nothing I post on aviation has or will be discredited. I know what I am talking about... and if I don't? I call someone who does. How many commercial/military pilots in your contact list?



GrowRebel said:


> Source? Link?



Here is the actual tape of one of the phone calls. 
[youtube]J36k8rXKp8s[/youtube]



GrowRebel said:


> Um ... why are you posting spec on the 757? What does that have to do with your claim about intercepts? Show us where you got the information about military jets being prohibited from breaking the sound barrier even on intercept. Plus it doesn't prove that those military jets didn't have time to reach those planes.



I posted the specs to show the top speed of a 757. Mach 1 is a known value. I put a lot of time into this post, and while it is widely known in the military that the only place you can break the sound barrier is in "special use" air space... under any condition. I had difficulty finding a source I would call credible... so rather than post links like yours... I just moved on. I have no idea where to find it... but I will. I just called my uncle (navy fighter jock) for confirmation before posting, even though it is known to me. If you insist... I will dig it up for you. But because it is proving to be a pain in the ass... when I find it, you will have to apologize to me and say you were wrong. Not a big ask for an honest man.



GrowRebel said:


> Strawman? What the hell does that mean? And why didn't you finish the man sentence that it wasn't true? Calling it "strawman" doesn't prove it's inaccurate.



You don't know what a straw man is? THAT is priceless. 

It means someone is waging a defeatable argument that nobody else is making. Nobody is suggesting the planes needed more authorization to shoot down commercial airliners. The argument is that they couldn't find them in time. It is a diversionary tactic to make someone APPEAR more credible.



GrowRebel said:


> No it's not ... you haven't posted anything to prove the video is inaccurate. Your witness post is questionable because of the video where no plane was seen, plus the statement of the pilot that didn't see the plane. You tried to twist the Capt. statement when he was describing how unlikely the plane did as claimed. Your FAA link didn't cover the three things Hordon talked about. So wrong again. You posted boeing spec which have nothing to do with military intercepts. So since you were unable to give a valid argument you once again claim it to be inaccurate when it is you who is.



You do not simply get to dismiss my arguments as invalid because you don't like them. If I am wrong about something... I will concede it. As I have done several times. You should try it. It sucks a little at first... but it feels much better in the long run.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 9, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Secondly, the claim that one is just asking questions is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the official theory.
> 
> Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they wont reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate story from _Prison Planet_, _9/11 Blogger_, _What Really Happened_ or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want:
> 
> ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 9, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> LMFAO... "There was no second plane... it was bomb... we saw whole thing... who told you it was second plane? It was bomb."
> 
> We all watched the second plane hit. That is how your "exposed" video starts. LMFAO. Had to pause and laugh. You aren't seriously suggesting that the plane everyone saw live didn't hit?
> Second guy... "no large pieces of plane... no fuselage... no tail section... just small pieces that you can pick up in your hand..."
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about? This is at the PENTAGON not the WTC. Did you even bother to look at the video enough to comprehend? If you had watch longer than 30 sec. you would have know that. 

 


what... huh? said:


> I explained that a couple of posts ago. What did I tell you about one video at a time?



the video give further evidence to the same issue ... you don't like it too bad.
 


what... huh? said:


> I haven't seen any commercial pilots who said any such thing. My ex-wife is a commercial pilot. Maybe I can have her give you a ring and explain some things to you.



There were plenty of experience pilots in the videos that explained things just fine. I also made sure I gave their rank and names. I don't need your wife.
  


what... huh? said:


> You have to actually read the evidence I provide you.



Yeah and you can actually watch the videos I provide you.




what... huh? said:


> They have the flight recorder, which has unique identifiers, and 23 hours of recorded data which corresponds to the planes flight/tracking records.



Do they now? Link source? I like to see it.




what... huh? said:


> They also have engine parts, which are all serial etched. They have positive identification of the airplane and its parts.



Why were there no plane parts at the pentagon lawn until later on? You still haven't answered the question about what the pilot said. What about that?




what... huh? said:


> The claim is simply false. Get that? FALSE CLAIM. The claim was not that they made it up... or forged it... the claim was that "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77". FALSE CLAIM. NTSB POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED 77.



Yeah by the same folks that are lying to us about this whole thing ... and we are expected to believe them?




what... huh? said:


> How do you think planes land? That is a serious question. Planes can fly at any altitude with enough thrust. Air density is the same at 30 feet as 1500.


Has nothing to do with the Pentagon ... nothing landed there.



what... huh? said:


> YOU "know" they covered things up. That is not "factual". It is your belief.



My belief? Is it my "belief" that witness didn't have to testify under oath? No ... it's a fact ... Is it my belief that the commission disregarded evidence ... no ... it's a fact ... it my belief that the pentagon confiscated 86 cameras around the site ... no it's a fact. It's it my belief that a 757 can't do the maneuvers it did on 911 at the pentagon ... no ... it's a fact stated by several experience pilots. You just like to claim there are my belief so your bogus argument might appear valid. They don't




what... huh? said:


> It cannot be a premise applied to MY beliefs. As to a source... I posted it already. The NTSB flight recorder.


You mean that part you didn't provide a link to? Mind if I take a look? Don't think you will mind posting a link since it will prove your point.
 


what... huh? said:


> He said ANY of those three things require an intercept. I have demonstrated that this is incorrect.


No not really ... from what I see this is only for radio failure ... not terrorist attacks. So you haven't. And it doesn't really say what year it was put out either ... I would like to know that too.



what... huh? said:


> I don't need to prove all three to prove that he doesn't have a fucking clue what he is talking about.


Sorry don't buy that ... he wasn't the only one ... and I'm not going to take someone with no experience over several people with experience.



what... huh? said:


> It takes a lot of my time to acquire this shit... you understand?


No I don't ... my activity level is 5% while yours is 25% ... and I do a lot of research. You need to organize your time better.



what... huh? said:


> I don't just google "9/11 conspiracy". I already know this information from experience, but have to go dig this shit up for you...


I dig shit up for you.



what... huh? said:


> I have disproven this "11 year ATC" witness as bullshit.


Nope ... sorry ... but you haven't.



what... huh? said:


> I have been in a plane with a dead transponder. I have been in a NORDO plane. I have been over restricted airspace in DC. I have never been intercepted. I know what the fuck I am talking about... and I have PROVEN this guy is full of shit.


Only in your mind ... you really haven't provided anything that tell us protocol during a hijacking or terrorist attack. These experience ex military pilots and ATC would know protocol ... not you.



what... huh? said:


> I am not going to waste 3 more hours disproving ALL of what he says, because I don't have to.


Well since you haven't done very well so far ... 



what... huh? said:


> FTR I have 20 years in the right seat.


You are not an experience pilot.



what... huh? said:


> Nothing I post on aviation has or will be discredited.


I already did ... you could not show anything that tells us protocol during an attack. 



what... huh? said:


> I know what I am talking about... and if I don't? I call someone who does. How many commercial/military pilots in your contact list?


their in the videos I provide ... giving their account ... where is yours? 




what... huh? said:


> Here is the actual tape of one of the phone calls.
> [youtube]J36k8rXKp8s[/youtube]
> There is no date or time ... it doesn't help your statement.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 9, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> *15 questions 9/11 truthers now need to answer*


Just reading this crap you can tell it's bullshit, especially the questions ... they either have nothing to do with 911 or it's a question that would have to be address to the people that did it.
But one good video that they think helps their case, but it only shows they are full of shit. It's an excellent debate between Richard Gage ... and a debunker Mark Roberts ... he has information ... but you can tell he's blowing it out his ass. It's in two parts almost an hour total, but it goes by real fast. I highly recommend it.
Hardfire ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / GAGE / ROBERTS / 1ST 

Hardfire ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / GAGE / ROBERTS / 2ND


----------



## Keenly (Aug 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


>


clap for that all you want, but one day there wont be anyone left to stand up to the big brother

whats going to happen then?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> What the fuck are you talking about? This is at the PENTAGON not the WTC. Did you even bother to look at the video enough to comprehend? If you had watch longer than 30 sec. you would have know that.




My god you are slow... the first clip is at WTC in new york. The camera pans off of the guy who "saw there was no second plane" to the new york city streetscape full of ash and people walking around dazed. There are no street corridors next to the pentagon. The second clip is about the pentagon. The third clip is about the flight in Pennsylvania. 
Watch your own video. 
 
 



GrowRebel said:


> the video give further evidence to the same issue ... you don't like it too bad.
> 
> There were plenty of experience pilots in the videos that explained things just fine. I also made sure I gave their rank and names. I don't need your wife.



  
Where? What pilots? 




GrowRebel said:


> Yeah and you can actually watch the videos I provide you.




Then I wish you fucking would... because that first clip is IN NEW YORK... jackass.




GrowRebel said:


> Do they now? Link source? I like to see it.




I PROVIDED THE FUCKING LINK YOU LOON!!! 
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf




GrowRebel said:


> Why were there no plane parts at the pentagon lawn until later on? You still haven't answered the question about what the pilot said. What about that?



 
According to YOU they weren't there till later on. Obviously they were there. I have no idea what you are talking about... what pilot... what did he say? You are ambiguous as hell.




GrowRebel said:


> Yeah by the same folks that are lying to us about this whole thing ... and we are expected to believe them?



 
Seriously? Are you mildly retarded? I didn't ask you to believe it. Your guy says NOBODY IN THE INVESTIGATION EVEN CLAIMS TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFIES 77. NTSB, who is part of the investigation, claims to positively identify 77. Do you understand? Do you get it? You understand that NTSB's claim does not have to be accurate in order for your guys claim to be wrong?



GrowRebel said:


> Has nothing to do with the Pentagon ... nothing landed there.




You are. You are mildly retarded. I can't argue with you.




GrowRebel said:


> My belief? Is it my "belief" that witness didn't have to testify under oath? No ... it's a fact ... Is it my belief that the commission disregarded evidence ... no ... it's a fact ... it my belief that the pentagon confiscated 86 cameras around the site ... no it's a fact. It's it my belief that a 757 can't do the maneuvers it did on 911 at the pentagon ... no ... it's a fact stated by several experience pilots. You just like to claim there are my belief so your bogus argument might appear valid. They don't



 
It is not a fact, even if it were stated by an experienced pilot... it would be their opinion... which is opposed by almost every other pilot on the planet. I, for instance, am an experienced pilot, and I disagree. That is my opinion. See how it works?



GrowRebel said:


> You mean that part you didn't provide a link to? Mind if I take a look? Don't think you will mind posting a link since it will prove your point.




http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf




GrowRebel said:


> No not really ... from what I see this is only for radio failure ... not terrorist attacks. So you haven't. And it doesn't really say what year it was put out either ... I would like to know that too.




"If any ONE of those THREE things goes wrong, they intercept." Are you really this dense? 



GrowRebel said:


> Sorry don't buy that ... he wasn't the only one ... and I'm not going to take someone with no experience over several people with experience.




You provided one person who claims to have experience. Not several people... and I just showed you the FAA proceedures on NORDO. 

You are too stupid to argue with. It isn't worth my time. You cannot understand simple concepts. You are a dishonest retarded time vampire. I am going back to ignoring you.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

Keenly said:


> clap for that all you want, but one day there wont be anyone left to stand up to the big brother
> 
> whats going to happen then?


I am not arguing for big brother.

I gave you the plausible conspiracy... which I believe. Go back to p105.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> My god you are slow... the first clip is at WTC in new york. The camera pans off of the guy who "saw there was no second plane" to the new york city streetscape full of ash and people walking around dazed. There are no street corridors next to the pentagon. The second clip is about the pentagon. The third clip is about the flight in Pennsylvania.
> Watch your own video.


You are the one that is slow ... I said I wasn't talking about NY ... I was talking about the pentagon ... and in that clip that you claim to have watched ... when at the pentagon the reporter states he sees NO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE CRASH. What part of that your delusional mind doesn't get? 
 
 


what... huh? said:


> Where? What pilots?


Right fucking here ... part 6 post 1072 
This part talks about NORAD ... a pilot was order to fly out and check out the damage ... very last part of 5 beginning of 6.
:10 statement made by another "loony" can't make out the whole name looks like a Lt. Col Karen something.
*"No airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn what we expected to see was not evident."*but I guess they are loonies too.



what... huh? said:


> Then I wish you fucking would... because that first clip is IN NEW YORK... jackass.



I wasn't talking about that part dumbass.




what... huh? said:


> I PROVIDED THE FUCKING LINK YOU LOON!!!
> http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf


Oh yeah ... my bad ... I did see this ... but it still doesn't prove there was a plane at the pentagon. The government has lie about a lot of things ... this could be another one.




what... huh? said:


> According to YOU they weren't there till later on. Obviously they were there. I have no idea what you are talking about... what pilot... what did he say? You are ambiguous as hell.



No ... according to the video on page 107 post 1062 part 5 ... I posted parts started showing up later according to the video ... and you still can't explain why those reporters at the pentagon site in the video didn't see any plane debris nor did the pilot.




what... huh? said:


> Seriously? Are you mildly retarded?



Are you?




what... huh? said:


> I didn't ask you to believe it. Your guy says NOBODY IN THE INVESTIGATION EVEN CLAIMS TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFIES 77. NTSB, who is part of the investigation, claims to positively identify 77.


They didn't they merely claim that it was ... if they really wanted to positively identify 77 they would have release those videos from those 86 cameras. The would have been up front and open about everything but the were not. So the government is merely stating it without giving any proof of it what so ever ... we are expected to take them at their word ... and I don't, because there are far too many unanswered questions, that they refuse to address.



what... huh? said:


> Do you understand? Do you get it? You understand that NTSB's claim does not have to be accurate in order for your guys claim to be wrong?


Why not?



what... huh? said:


> You are. You are mildly retarded. I can't argue with you.



That's because you really have nothing to argue with ... no matter what you present there are still plenty of unanswered questions.




what... huh? said:


> It is not a fact, even if it were stated by an experienced pilot...


Not one several ... their names are listed in the posts.



what... huh? said:


> it would be their opinion... which is opposed by almost every other pilot on the planet.


Oh really ... well then it should be no trouble for you to get their names and statements now would it.



what... huh? said:


> I, for instance, am an experienced pilot, and I disagree. That is my opinion. See how it works?


Yeah ... right ... suddenly you are an experience pilot ... bwaa ha ha ha.



what... huh? said:


> "If any ONE of those THREE things goes wrong, they intercept." Are you really this dense?


Yet all three took place and no planes ... why? You still haven't proven that fighters can't intercept after a certain speed ... You still haven't posted what the protocol for military fighters were on that day, and you still haven't explain why the pentagon didn't fire on the "plane" with their defense system.




what... huh? said:


> You provided one person who claims to have experience. Not several people... and I just showed you the FAA proceedures on NORDO.


I provided the page and post number where I have the pilots, if you are too stupid to read it ... that's not my problem. I don't see any date with those procedures or anything that refers to a hijacking or attack. So no cookies for you.



what... huh? said:


> You are too stupid to argue with.


No I'm too smart to let you get away with bullshit that has nothing to do with 911 ... It's not my problem that you can't handle it.



what... huh? said:


> It isn't worth my time. You cannot understand simple concepts.


You are the one that can't understand simple concepts. 911 was an inside job. Case close. You are never a waste of my time ... I like making you and other like you look stupid.


what... huh? said:


> You are a dishonest retarded time vampire. I am going back to ignoring you.


And you are a person that gets pissed when you can't win an argument. Poor baby.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

> What I think.
> 
> 
> I think Sibel Edmonds is the key to the real answer... but I don't think she knows it.
> ...


That does seem perfectly logical to me.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You think it is more likely that they used three planes and one missile... because... ahhh fuck becauses... It is more likely to you that they used three planes and one missile and that is what they are hiding? Why use an ICBM on a sunny day in front of hundreds of witnesses? The pentagon is a busy place. I295 loops around the front side, 1 block from an international airport... it is a stupid idea.
> 
> 
> Or is it more likely that they are hiding their associations with a terrorist network out doing our dirty work against the 2nd and 3rd most powerful nations on earth, and got double crossed? What are the chances that the perfect cover of a common enemy does more good for us? What if...
> ...



More of my thoughts on the subject.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

Yeah I agree with all of that. That type of thing has always been going on, isn't that just an extension of Black ops?

I am not very learned on military, so can only really look at things and see if the pieces fit.

But I do see where someone might take this, by connecting this with releasing of the two reporters that were stupid (too cocky) enough to go into N Korea as negotiating. But dealing with off book terrorist activities, is not the same as talking with people to get a peaceful solution.

I think that we need to evolve past this war culture that we have. 

I am a pacifist, but I practice brazilian jiu-jitsu, mau thai, and was a collegate wrestler my first go at school. I am all for being prepared for any situation, but it doesn't mean that I need to pick a fight everytime I am at a bar if someone looks at me wrong, or even if they advance on me. 

But everything that you have said seems perfectly reasonable. And your insight as a pilot gives you a much better look at how things actually work.

This is the difference between KNOWING because you have been in their shoes and done the real research , and _KNOWING_ because you have seen a couple youtube clips and read some blogs.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

I learned to fly due to circumstance. My ex and I were together since we were 16. I went to the school she went to flight training at. She was a certified flight instructor for almost a decade earning enough jet time to get on with the airlines. Our friends were pilots, instructors, ATC and airport admins... I have flown props, jets, helicopters... I never had any interest in flying. It was just opportunity based. 20 years with a pilot will do that.

For the record, I am a shitty pilot. (that would be WHY I was in restricted DC airspace over the whitehouse.)

But I know an awful lot. I studied with her... I quizzed her... piloting was a part of our every day lives and dominated most discussions. I don't want to come across as superpilot. I am not. But I know regs and aeronautics pat.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> That does seem perfectly logical to me.


Except for one key point ... I posted this way back on page 17 post 161 ...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fakealqaeda.html?q=fakealqaeda.htmlhttp://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fakealqaeda.html?q=fakealqaeda.html [FONT=&quot][URL="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda.html"]*Fake Al Qaeda*[/FONT][/url]

... and let's not forget this one ... I posted on page 103 post 1029 and page 106 post 1059
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nABBC now admits al qaeda never existedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA
[youtube]r-hYorNi0nA[/youtube]


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

> I learned to fly due to circumstance. My ex and I were together since we were 16. I went to the school she went to flight training at. She was a certified flight instructor for almost a decade earning enough jet time to get on with the airlines. Our friends were pilots, instructors, ATC and airport admins... I have flown props, jets, helicopters... I never had any interest in flying. It was just opportunity based. 20 years with a pilot will do that.
> 
> For the record, I am a shitty pilot. (that would be WHY I was in restricted DC airspace over the whitehouse.)
> 
> But I know an awful lot. I studied with her... I quizzed her... piloting was a part of our every day lives and dominated most discussions. I don't want to come across as superpilot. I am not. But I know regs and aeronautics pat.


No I get it, my fiance' is a pharmacist, and I did the same when she was writing papers, studying ect. So I have some insight on the medical system and how drug administration works. But it does not mean that I am even close to her with that knowledge. 

And the same with my going to school for economics. I have a very large base of information in it, but I am nowhere close to where I will be in ten years from now.

But the insight that we have is from a different place than just reading blogs, or biased books. You can sniff the bullshit a mile away, and pick out the buzzwords and know how they are manipulating things.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> This is the difference between KNOWING because you have been in their shoes and done the real research , and _KNOWING_ because you have seen a couple youtube clips and read some blogs.


Oh really ... are you saying I have to be a pilot to know what really happen on 911, or that the pilots I cited are less valid because they are on a video clip? I've done more than read some blogs and look at a couple of youtube clips. This thread proves that.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

What is in a name?

This is not something that matters much to me. I don't think that we should be fighting these bullshit wars. If we want to not get attacked we should win the peoples hearts and minds by helping them out of their huts, with schooling and hospitals. Instead of blowing them up. I think that if a government is attacking you, then yes go to war. But you cannot win a war against a country due to nutjobs.

The 'face' that we placed on terrorism is a joke. These people are not super humans.



> Oh really ... are you saying I have to be a pilot to know what really happen on 911, or that the pilots I cited are less valid because they are on a video clip? I've done more than read some blogs and look at a couple of youtube clips. This thread proves that.


No that was more about conspiracy theories in general. If you just keep looking at information that talks about this side or that side, then you would fall into that catagory. 

Now if you decided to actually study and learn how to pilot without anything regarding 9/11 for or against, then formulate a decision then you would not. Try to learn the process before your put ideals into it.

The problem is people try to 'learn' with in the back of their mind always saying nope that's wrong, and never actually LEARN. That is the difference between KNOWING, and _KNOWING_.

Edit: and if I don't have time to actually learn what the proper way to understand what the actual information is, I will always let my decision fall on the specialists that have nothing to gain or lose from a unbiased opinion based on facts.

I will always put more faith into a scientists hands than a blogger/talking head.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

Quick story... 

4th of July 2000... we decided to take a plane up to watch the fireworks from the air and take some shots (sounds fun right?). We got clearance to run a holding pattern over unrestricted space in DC/VA. She was fooling with the camera etc, when I changed vectors according to my mapping/waypoint. Suddenly NEADS breaks in over the com and says "(tailsign), you are in restricted airspace deviate to vector xxxx or you will be shot down."

"copy"

She took the helm. That was the last time I was allowed to fly over DC.

Pictures turned out shit too. I will email her for them so I can post.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> What is in a name?


What do you mean?
 


hanimmal said:


> This is not something that matters much to me.


It matter to me ... a horrible crime took place on 911 over 3000 innocent people were murder ... tens of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have been murdered ... people are being tortured, and held indefinitely,with no charges against them, and the people responsible are walking free still murdering people. It is my duty as an American to speak out against it.


hanimmal said:


> I don't think that we should be fighting these bullshit wars.


I agree ... and 911 was use to start illegal wars. That's why the truth must become generally known. Starting illegal wars based on lies and a false flag attack may not bother you, but it bugs the shit out of me and I will not sit by and do nothing.



hanimmal said:


> If we want to not get attacked we should win the peoples hearts and minds by helping them out of their huts, with schooling and hospitals.


There is no money in that for the elite ... war is big business and they will continue to stage false flag attacks so they can have a perpetual war. That's why it is so important to speak out and let those assholes in Washington know they are criminals.



hanimmal said:


> Instead of blowing them up. I think that if a government is attacking you, then yes go to war. But you cannot win a war against a country due to nutjobs.


What do you mean by that?



hanimmal said:


> The 'face' that we placed on terrorism is a joke. These people are not super humans.


I agree with the joke part ... but what do you mean not super humans?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 10, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> Wow - take a gander at what you wrote. You assume ALL Arabs took delight in 9/11, basically calling all Muslims terrorists and suggest that ALL Muslims worldwide have 'very very few victories', which is horribly pretentious.
> 
> So tell me, why do you think so negatively of Arabs? Are you this prejudiced in other areas of your life? Hmmmm.....
> 
> No response?


I think your response is more ILLUMINATING.....

I said, I think the Arabs believe that Al Queda pulled off 9/11 (and they most certainly did)

You (I'm assuming) carefully read that post and came back with *"You assume ALL Arabs took delight in 9/11"*. 

You are injecting things into your response that don't match up. Concentrate a bit.




GrowRebel said:


> Just reading this crap you can tell it's bullshit, especially the questions ... they either have nothing to do with 911 or it's a question that would have to be address to the people that did it.
> But one good video that they think helps their case, but it only shows they are full of shit. It's an excellent debate between Richard Gage ... and a debunker Mark Roberts ... he has information ... but you can tell he's blowing it out his ass. It's in two parts almost an hour total, but it goes by real fast. I highly recommend it.
> Hardfire ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / GAGE / ROBERTS / 1ST
> 
> Hardfire ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / GAGE / ROBERTS / 2ND


This proves the point of my post. NOTICE HOW GROW REBEL QUICKLY DEFLECTS AWAY......... he doesn't have a ready made propaganda video to answer the questions.....so by his "logic", they must be garbage.....since he can't answer them and he knows everything true about 9/11. It's now his identity.... pathetic

Grow Rebel doesn't have a premade video explaining the relevant questions.... they haven't been made yet.

He is awaiting further propaganda orders I suppose. 

The questions reveals some DEEP flaws in the "truthers", who are quite unwilling to believe that Arabs can pull off a terrorist plot.

I dare say if some "right wing nut jobs" came out with a similar story about a minority group being "unable" to pull off a plot....they'd be called racist. So what does that make the "truthers" who refuse to believe that Arabs pulled off 9/11? 

Heck. I'll repost the questions for you again if you wish. I'm sure you have been scrambling ever since trying to assemble a "new" truth.

This is a direct product of our failing schools folks. Lightweight interpretive skills and a copy/paste mentality.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> No that was more about conspiracy theories in general. If you just keep looking at information that talks about this side or that side, then you would fall into that catagory.


I do look at both sides ... you can see that I have both sides posted in this thread ... there is an excellent video I just posted of a debate from both sides. You can decided who is the more valid.



hanimmal said:


> Now if you decided to actually study and learn how to pilot without anything regarding 9/11 for or against, then formulate a decision then you would not. Try to learn the process before your put ideals into it.


How can I disregard 911 when that is what this discussion is all about?



hanimmal said:


> The problem is people try to 'learn' with in the back of their mind always saying nope that's wrong, and never actually LEARN. That is the difference between KNOWING, and _KNOWING_.


That's not the case with 911 ... there is far too much evidence and unanswered questions to say ... nope that's wrong.



hanimmal said:


> Edit: and if I don't have time to actually learn what the proper way to understand what the actual information is, I will always let my decision fall on the specialists that have nothing to gain or lose from a unbiased opinion based on facts.


Been there done that ... this thread is full of testimonies from specialists that have nothing to gain or lose giving an unbiased opinion base on undeniable scientific facts.



hanimmal said:


> I will always put more faith into a scientists hands than a blogger/talking head.


So do I ... and I've posted it too.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> This proves the point of my post.
> 
> Grow Rebel doesn't have a premade video explaining the relevant questions.... they haven't been made yet.


Don't have to ... any anyone has to do is read it and see he is full of shit. Just like you. I see where you get your mind set from



CrackerJax said:


> He is awaiting further propaganda orders I suppose.


bwaa ha ha ha ... look who's talking about propaganda! Bwaa ha ha ha ... too funny!



CrackerJax said:


> The questions reveals some DEEP flaws in the "truthers", who are quite unwilling to believe that Arabs can pull off a terrorist plot.


Bullshit ...he ask questions that has nothing to do with what happen ... I can see how an idiot like you would think they do.



CrackerJax said:


> I dare say if some "right wing nut jobs" came out with a similar story about a minority group being "unable" to pull off a plot....they'd be called racist. So what does that make the "truthers" who refuse to believe that Arabs pulled off 9/11?


Oh so now we are racist because we don't buy the government bullshit ... what an ass you are.



CrackerJax said:


> Heck. I'll repost the questions for you again if you wish. I'm sure you have been scrambling ever since trying to assemble a "new" truth.


I've already responded to the questions ... if you don't like my answer ... to fucking bad.



CrackerJax said:


> This is a direct product of our failing schools folks. Lightweight interpretive skills and a copy/paste mentality.


Said the jackass who continues to blow shit out her ass.kiss-ass


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

> What do you mean?


I mean if these groups of people that blow up the embassies, or twin towers, or the uss (ship no clue the name right now) are what they are, does what they are called really matter?



> It matter to me ... a horrible crime took place on 911 over 3000 innocent people were murder ... tens of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis have been murdered ... people are being tortured, and held indefinitely,with no charges against them, and the people responsible are walking free still murdering people. It is my duty as an American to speak out against it.


I mean what we call them doesn't matter to me. I have no problem with thinking that it is a way to drive people in america ("Us") against a "Them". So the rest of what you said is out of context. I have big issues with everything that is being done in the name of getting "Them".



> I agree ... and 911 was use to start illegal wars. That's why the truth must become generally known. Starting illegal wars based on lies and a false flag attack may not bother you, but it bugs the shit out of me and I will not sit by and do nothing.


Again I agree here, but if you meant that the truth is the conspiracy that the government planned 9/11 then you will lose me. I have not read much throughout this thread, but that seems to be what a lot are implying. I will follow What... Huhs logic on this one since he is using knowledge that seems that it is firsthand.



> There is no money in that for the elite ... war is big business and they will continue to stage false flag attacks so they can have a perpetual war. That's why it is so important to speak out and let those assholes in Washington know they are criminals.


Again we agree. These constant wars are going to get more future Americans killed, and not just by people over there. I have seen a lot of hate generated towards middle eastern people over here by people that consider themselves "True Americans". 



> What do you mean by that?


I mean that we cannot invade a country and kill a million people based on the actions of a few people that did a terrorist attack (even worse is invading a country and blaming it on people that are not even living there). We need to work with those governments and get the actual people that did this, and not invade a country based off of it. 

The world was united with us after 9/11, we alienated them with our actions.



> I agree with the joke part ... but what do you mean not super humans?


That they are not Dr. Evil sitting in the middle of a volcano with unlimited intel and funds, and super evil fish with lasers.

If we cut off the people (The populations of these countries) hating us by improving their quality of life and helping them to understand the free market and how it can help them out, they will not be as willing to house the criminals. But instead we keep them in fear and they are not trusting anyone.





> Quick story...
> 
> 4th of July 2000... we decided to take a plane up to watch the fireworks from the air and take some shots (sounds fun right?). We got clearance to run a holding pattern over unrestricted space in DC/VA. She was fooling with the camera etc, when I changed vectors according to my mapping/waypoint. Suddenly NEADS breaks in over the com and says "(tailsign), you are in restricted airspace deviate to vector xxxx or you will be shot down."
> 
> ...


That is a hilarious story.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 10, 2009)

*HAHAHA!!! Can't answer the questions I take it??? Thought so!!!*

This concludes the BS broadcast folks........ without being able to answer ALL of the 15 questions to satisfaction, any one of them makes the 9/11 conspiracy fall apart.

It's only for the mediocre of mind. I will leave you to that mediocrity Grow Rebel, since you cannot prove your case.


*You look like a fundamentalist Christian....  You really really do!*


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 10, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> *HAHAHA!!! Can't answer the questions I take it??? Thought so!!!*
> 
> This concludes the BS broadcast folks........ without being able to answer ALL of the 15 questions to satisfaction, any one of them makes the 9/11 conspiracy fall apart.
> 
> ...


But I thought you supported Palin .


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 10, 2009)

WAR! Has anyone noticed that every time we hit a little economic hiccup we are soon propelled into war somewhere. I start to wonder if WAR isn't the USA's answer to economic failure. If the economy gets worse will we see more war?


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

Hey Grow, you put my name where you were quoting someone else, can you change that since I really don't want my name on those things! If not no big deal really. So screw it, nevermind.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> *HAHAHA!!! Can't answer the questions I take it??? Thought so!!!*


I did answer the questions is it my fault you are too stupid to comprehend what I said.



CrackerJax said:


> This concludes the BS broadcast folks.......


Oh your part? I doubt that.



CrackerJax said:


> without being able to answer ALL of the 15 questions to satisfaction, any one of them makes the 9/11 conspiracy fall apart.


Only in your bushwhacked mind ... and there is nothing new with that. How so? How do those questions make the conspiracy fall apart... I bet you can't answer that.



CrackerJax said:


> It's only for the mediocre of mind. I will leave you to that mediocrity Grow Rebel, since you cannot prove your case.


I've proved my case long ago ...you are just too big of an idiot to see it ... which doesn't bother me in the lest. I just love making a fool of you ... lots of fun.




CrackerJax said:


> *You look like a fundamentalist Christian....  You really really do!*


And you look like a complete and total dumbass ... you really really do


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Hey Grow, you put my name where you were quoting someone else, can you change that since I really don't want my name on those things! If not no big deal really. So screw it, nevermind.


Sorry ... my bad ... I fixed it ... I don't blame you ... I wouldn't want to be mistaken for that asshole either.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> WAR! Has anyone noticed that every time we hit a little economic hiccup we are soon propelled into war somewhere. I start to wonder if WAR isn't the USA's answer to economic failure. If the economy gets worse will we see more war?


That's why 911 went down ... so the sheep would go along with an illegal war ... I'm sure they are working on starting another war ... like Iran ... or Pakistan or both ... there is info all over the net about it.
There was some general that put out a paper years ago about war being nothing but a money making racket.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

It is a shame that it is like having unprotected sex when you are young (before I got with my fiance' who has always been on the pill) you know you should pull out, but you just can't bring yourself to do it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> It is a shame that it is like having unprotected sex when you are young (before I got with my fiance' who has always been on the pill) you know you should pull out, but you just can't bring yourself to do it.


They won't pull out ... why shoudl they? They believe they have enough dummies that buy their bullshit terrorist stories ... they are making huge profits, the government has create so called laws claiming they can break international laws.  Since there has been no accountability for 911 they will probably fake another attack and blame it on the country they want to attack ... and remember Afghanistan nor Iraq attack the US.

... and there was one other thing I wanted to ask you ... what first hand knowledge would WH have that would bring you to believe the government's conspiracy theory? He wasn't in NY on 911 in that cockpit was he ... wasn't at the pentagon was he... you said you go by specialist ... and I've posted them ... yet you go by WH tell you? Explain?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

War costs money. We are spending billions... not making them.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> War costs money. We are spending billions... not making them.


 
Well you're right, WE, as in the US citizens are paying for the war, and it is costing us BILLIONS, which makes anything the politicians do stateside regarding the economic crisis seem preety damn redundant to me... "yeah yeah, we'll keep throwing the majority of our "defense" spending into this gaping black hole thousands of miles from the homeland that's already experiencing economic collapse... We gotta get those terrorists!!" .. "but we need national healthcare, and that's going to cost billions too!" ..."more taxes?" .. "ok! We wouldn't want to take even 1% off the top of the ''defense budget!" ... Politicians get paid. Politicians get votes and they get reelected.

Reading your posts I know you couldn't possibly believe what you posted before. 

There are handfulls of people who became EXTREMELY wealthy ONLY because the invasion of the middle east took place. 

We're paying for it in money and American lives. (not to mention Iraqi lives)


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 10, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> War costs money. We are spending billions... not making them.


If war costs money, then who is getting the money? Its not just being thrown into a hole, someone is getting paid. 

FWIW we ARE making money, by the hundreds of Billions too. Every time the FED purchases a US treasury they are making money from thin air.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

> Every time the FED purchases a US treasury they are making money from thin air.


It is more of a leverage against the reserves of the banks. Still not great, but not from thin air.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> It is more of a leverage against the reserves of the banks. Still not great, but not from thin air.


 Oh its from thin air, they have a great big checkbook, that has no account to draw on and they just write whatever number they want in the blank. Its called "monetizing the Debt" and "Quantitative Easing". Try reading a few books that look at things differently besides JUST what your college professors want you to read, educate yourself some before giving your mind to others to mold as they see fit. try reading this book if you can find it....http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I did answer the questions is it my fault you are too stupid to comprehend what I said.
> 
> 
> Oh your part? I doubt that.
> ...


*YOU'RE JUST A COPY/PASTE BOY!!!!


CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!! 
*


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

> Oh its from thin air, they have a great big checkbook, that has no account to draw on and they just write whatever number they want in the blank. Its called "monetizing the Debt" and "Quantitative Easing". Try reading a few books that look at things differently besides JUST what your college professors want you to read, educate yourself some before giving your mind to others to mold as they see fit. try reading this book if you can find it....http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple.../dp/0671675567


 I read a ton of books from all different perspectives, hell I even read nut blogs, and watch trees' youtube videos. And again it is not thin air.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> And again it is not thin air.


 
Explain it to me the way you believe it works. I'm pretty uneducated on the FED, more than I should be.

We don't have any money, the FED says we need it, the FED creates it and the treasury buys it, it then goes into circulation... I thought that's how it worked. 

Isn't that pretty much out of thin air?


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 10, 2009)

> Explain it to me the way you believe it works. I'm pretty uneducated on the FED, more than I should be.
> 
> We don't have any money, the FED says we need it, the FED creates it and the treasury buys it, it then goes into circulation... I thought that's how it worked.
> 
> Isn't that pretty much out of thin air?


Close it is actually the other way around. The Fed (Quazi private/Government) buys it from the treasury (Government). They get it similar to selling a bond. That money is using the reserves as its collateral. 

It is like a credit card. It is like thin air, but not really you still have to pay it back.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 10, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> It is like a credit card. It is like thin air, but not really you still have to pay it back.


the FED does not have to pay anything back, what about this aren't you understanding han? the citizens must pay it back, with interest attached. I think you got lost on day 1 of macroeconomics.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Well you're right, WE, as in the US citizens are paying for the war, and it is costing us BILLIONS, which makes anything the politicians do stateside regarding the economic crisis seem preety damn redundant to me... "yeah yeah, we'll keep throwing the majority of our "defense" spending into this gaping black hole thousands of miles from the homeland that's already experiencing economic collapse... We gotta get those terrorists!!" .. "but we need national healthcare, and that's going to cost billions too!" ..."more taxes?" .. "ok! We wouldn't want to take even 1% off the top of the ''defense budget!" ... Politicians get paid. Politicians get votes and they get reelected.
> 
> Reading your posts I know you couldn't possibly believe what you posted before.
> 
> ...


Yes and no. I realize that many people make money on war... ALL of congress does not make money on war... and they are the people for whom the repercussions weigh on. It is their constituents, their fathers and mothers, their wives and children who bear the burden of death... who keep them in their position to send us to war. You presume that they all receive millions of dollars for sending us... that they are ALL corrupt who send us... that NONE say "Haliburton offered me 2 million to vote for war, and should be prosecuted for attempted bribery of a public official". Cause that would ALSO keep them elected. That every single one is corrupt to the core, and bought is as ludicrous as 9/11 being a false flag operation to me.

I watch too many congressional hearings to accept that. Yes it works in theory... in practice... not so much.


War costs money... doesn't make any.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 10, 2009)

We have been at war in the middle east for almost 8 years. Whoever was theoretically paid has been paid. The nation is fatigued with war... they still have not come back...


and with all our checks and balances... not a SINGLE congressman has been "caught" taking money to keep us at war. Obama voted against Iraq... and yet despite his campaign promises... we are still in Iraq. He has not called on congress to recall our troops. There are deeper reasons. It isn't because he was payed off in some off shore account.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 10, 2009)

War is great for the economy.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 11, 2009)

Pretend we are in Missouri.


Show me.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 11, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> War is great for the economy.


Well, I guess we are in for a big F'N war then.........thanks Obama!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 11, 2009)

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-bin-laden-worked-for-us-until-911/Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US until 9/11 
In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained intimate relations with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, all the way until that day of September 11.
These intimate relations included using Bin Laden for operations in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These operations involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict, that is, fighting enemies via proxies.
As previously reported, Bin Laden was met in July 2001 at the American hospital at Dubaï by CIA.
Already quite ill (Osama would die before the end of the year), Osama became the perfect person to play the greatest villain of all time; a face to attach to a false-flag attack in New York, then to be the supervillain nobody could ever find and arrest.
So, who really did 9-11?Here is a clue


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 11, 2009)

Remember when the government told the first responders the air was safe ... just another lie.

http://news.aol.com/article/multiple-myeloma-cancer-in-911-rescuers/542579?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main%7Cdl1%7Clink4%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fmultiple-myeloma-cancer-in-911-rescuers%2F542579Cancer Found in Young 9/11 Rescuers
Researchers say a small number of young law enforcement officers who participated in the World Trade Center rescue and cleanup operation have developed an immune system cancer.
The numbers are tiny, and experts don't know whether there is any link between the illnesses and toxins released during the disaster.
But doctors who coordinated the study, published Monday in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, said people who worked at the site should continue to have their health monitored.

911 Toxic Cloud

Rise In Asthma Linked To 9/11 Dust Cloud
Thousands of people exposed to choking dust after the destruction of the World Trade Centre twin towers in New York have developed asthma, a study has shown.
Rescue and recovery workers, office staff and passers-by were included in the follow-up study of more than 46,000 people.
It found that one-in-10 caught up in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had been diagnosed with asthma five or six years after the disaster.
None of these 4,600 individuals had a previous history of the disease.

Corporate media is desperate ...

Movement As Racist, Nazi Like, Stupid
A vicious attack piece in the Rupert Murdoch owned London Times has linked the so called "birther" phenomenon with 9/11 Truth, in an effort to imply that the movement is inherently racist and "intellectually scary" (read stupid).
In an article entitled To tell you the truth, these conspiracists scare me, Times "journalist" James Bone equates those who question the government version of events on 9/11 with "crackpot birthers", referring to those who have questioned Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
I told you the birth certificate nonsense was a propaganda operation.

20 Quick facts and unanswered questions about 9/11
First, how did Israeli security forces witness a transfer of anthrax between two groups that didn't have it, at a meeting that never even took place?


http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=2000Jerry Mazza: 9/11 was an Inside Job
On-line journalist and poet talks with Russia Today about 911.


http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4967.shtml9/11s smoking gun still smoking!
The fact is that Tower Seven vanished in its footprint in six seconds at 5:28 PM on that day, after its owner Larry Silverstein announced at about 3 PM that there had been so much bloodshed and pain, that they had decided to pull it, which is the classic term for an internal demolition. So it really wasnt the first steel Tower in history to fall by fire. Whatever fires there were, were put out and did not bring Tower 7 down, even if it had burned all day, which it didnt. What brought it down was the order to pull it. *The hitch is you cant set up an internal demolition for a 47-story, steel-frame building in two and a half hours, nor two and a half days or weeks.*


More news as I find it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 11, 2009)

9 11 The Whole World Knows Even The French Get It ( 1) (9/11 TRUTH SERIES)
[youtube]xI5l55p2s-o&eurl=[/youtube]

9 /11 The Whole World Knows Even The French Get It (2) (9/11 TRUTH)
[youtube]WyHlHKFq6ro&feature=related[/youtube]

Here's another 911 debate ...
9/11 Was an Inside Job Debate Part1
[youtube]D0hNCLZRcaE&feature=related[/youtube]
Sorry ... I can't seem to find part two.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

Hahah!! Yes, even ppl from other countries are cashing in.... Love the laugh track. Uhhh, it's a comedy...... wow, are you off your medications?


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 12, 2009)

hey reb besides being a good coverup do u believe bin laden did ANYTHING wrong? well that was probly a stupid question but i want to know as much as possible! 
Keep posting i read it all 
and you are officially my new idol!!!! Good day reb!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 12, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Hahah!! Yes, even ppl from other countries are cashing in.... Love the laugh track. Uhhh, it's a comedy...... wow, are you off your medications?


Are you on yours? So is the daily show ... the colbert report ... they talk about real news too ... and your point? So they are making big bucks off this are they? Well then you shouldn't have any problems finding out how much they are making ... will you. If not ... we can chalk it up to you blowing it out your ass again.



wyteboi said:


> hey reb besides being a good coverup do u believe bin laden did ANYTHING wrong?


Well it's hard to say ... according to the article I posted Bin Laden was working for the US government up until 911. If he did do things wrong he had the backing and blessing of the US, that's for sure. He was their boy, and high government officials are still friendly with his family ... he was probably a patsy.



wyteboi said:


> well that was probly a stupid question but i want to know as much as possible!
> Keep posting i read it all
> and you are officially my new idol!!!! Good day reb!


There are no stupid questions when it comes to exposing the truth of 911.
Thank you for the support. I plan to keep everyone updated as to what is going on.
I did find out that congress is out of session now. You have the option ... for those that wish to mail the report and cover letter I posted ... of mailing it to their local office or wait until they get back to Washington. I know they will not investigate, but it will put them on notice, make them extremely nervous, and put the pressure on that we know, and no matter how many shills or false reports they put out they can't fool us ... we know 911 was an inside job.
I plan to send my worthless rep a copy while he is here. My senators I will send those to Washington. I don't expect a reply, but I will ask for one. If I get one I will post it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 12, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> The internal structure of the pentagon is not common knowledge. They also didn't want it being used for propaganda as it is our fortress. They also rebuilt it in a month. It is an issue of symbolism mostly.


We don't need to see the "internal structure" what the hell does that have to do with the plane supposedly external impact? So your "suggestion" doesn't explain why those cameras were confiscated. Used for propaganda? Get real  And you still haven't answered why those reporters didn't see a plane at the pentagon. Or that pilot.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 12, 2009)

Check it out kids ... I found part two of that debate ... 
911 Inside Job debate part 2
[youtube]FYwPHqPW5_4[/youtube]
The bother is a truther ... and the british guy is a denier ... he probably believes 7/7 was a terrorist attack too.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 12, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> *YOU'RE JUST A COPY/PASTE BOY!!!!
> CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!
> *


And what the hell are you? What part of your bushwhacked mind didn't understand when I said I did answer the questions ... you have yet to say what these questions have to do with the 911 coverup. Not to mention the asshole questions are something only the perpetrators can answers. How the fuck is anyone else suppose to know?


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 12, 2009)

"Originally Posted by *CrackerJax*  
*YOU'RE JUST A COPY/PASTE BOY!!!!
CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!" 
He has answered WAY more then most even want to know!!!! 
Go back to page ONE and read all.....THEN go find some terrorist!
*


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 12, 2009)

There are no terrorists.... only govt. agents!!!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

Folks ... I just can't resist posting some of the most asinine comments I have ever seen ... check it .... 



natrone23 said:


> There got a be a good a way to make money off these idiots, maybe write a book or make a inside job video and sell to the truthers for 1$ a piece....these guys will believe anything


Listen to this dummy ... I keep asking to show where they are making all this money off of us, but none of the dummies can come up with anything other than shooting their stupid mouths off. Sound like it's these guys that will believe anything. Even the impossible.



The Warlord said:


> Dude, Fire can melt steel. You throw a piece of steel in a really hot campfire your gonna get a melted piece of slag. Ever seen anyone use a cutting torch? Fire and oxygen melts the hell outta steel. Pour thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel on to a steel beam and it's liquid metal right fucking now. People that can't grasp this concept are not firing on all cylinders.


Bwaa ha ha ha ... what an idiot! Check out Ilkhan's pictures ... 










See any steel melted into slag? Bwaa ha ha ... that guy is a complete and total idiot ... he can't explain what happen here.




Big P said:


> lol you got all the fools all in one thread. hurry now hurry man lead them off a cliff they will follow screaming and shouting if you tell them evil Dr. Cheny is down there priming his flux capacitor to destroy the world so he can feed off the dead babies


This guy is the fool. Bwaa ha ha.



Big P said:


> my god I didnt really think you guys actually believed that 9/11 was an inside job.


Unlike this dummy ... we have a problem disregard hard evidence.



Big P said:


> I thought most of you just hated bush so much that this was a delusionary way for you to deal with it


The only ones with delusions are those that buy the government's conspiracy theory ...but then why not ... they are idiots. 
 


Big P said:


> your the kind of people I would hustle into my slaves, if I was into that sort of thing.


Yeah ... he wishes ... we are not as stupid as this guy.



Big P said:


> same kind of people who are so easily inducted into fringe cults, when all the while they take your money and sleep with your wives


You mean like you?



Big P said:


> fix your brains. or you will be duped and taken advantage of for the rest of your lives.


It's his brain that need fixing ... we are not the ones that disregard scientific facts and evidence. He is.



Big P said:


> its good to question everything, thats fine. but dont be an ass


Try and follow your own advice.



Big P said:


> i always thought everyone was pretty much the same inteligence just that thier education or thier expiriances made them not as smart


Sound like that's the case with you.
 


Big P said:


> but im starting to change my mind over the years
> I guess brains are like dicks maybe some have big ones and some have little ones


Yeah ... and he should know! Bwaa ha ha ha.



Big P said:


> do you guys think thats true?


In his case ... most definitely!



Big P said:


> I always thought pretty much as long as you are a normal human you should be about as smart as everyone else. but i have met some super dumb people over my life and im starting to question my own theory now


Wow ... and I'm addressing a super dumb person right now ... how about that!



Big P said:


> in all seriousness really. wtf?


Ditto. 



Big P said:


> guys each plane was carrying approximatly 3500 gallons of jet fuel each


How does he know this? He certainly didn't show his source ... could it be because he doesn't have one? Thought so.



Big P said:


> when the planes hit the towers each tower had 3500 gallons of jet fuel that began dropping down in elevator shafts staircases and anywhere else gravity would allow it to


How does he know this? He hasn't presented any evidence to support his claim so it is safe to say he is blowing it out his ass until he produces something. Which he won't because he can't. Bwaa ha ha.



Big P said:


> do you know how much jet fuel that is? your telling me any building short of the pyramids could withstand 3500 gallons of jet fuel being poured onto it and ignited?


Ummm yes ... since it's a scientific fact that jet fuel can not get hot enough to melt structural steel not to mention there are infra red photos proving the fire cool down 15 minutes after impact. And the fact that the survivors stated that everything was normal once they reached the lower floors.



Big P said:


> no other building when it catches fire has 3500 gallons of jet fuel thrown upon it. maybe thats why its not similar to any normal building fire or accidental fire


Maybe that's why? No it isn't why since it's a scientific fact that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough. What part of that don't these dummies get?



Big P said:


> this was on purpose. why would the government even have to blow the buildings up when the planes already carried enough fuel to destroy them by themselves.


The answer is obvious ... the fuel wasn't enough, only dummies like this guy believe that shit.



Big P said:


> you find me an architect that can design a building that can withstand 3500 gallons of jet fuel dumped on it


No problem ... Richard Gage is one of 800 engineers. Niels Harrit is another ... and the scientist in the video I posted is another. All too easy.



Big P said:


> what takes the cake is that when u say these things you are helping the enemy


Yeah ... right 



Big P said:


> its like saying to an obviously raped and beaten gurl that she probably beat her own self up and staged the whole rape while her rapist is laughing all the way home preying on his next victom


Bwaa ha ha ha ... what a stupid analogy! Try this one ... a guy in a mask rapes a girl and blames it on someone else ... wow what a concept!



Big P said:


> actually the building was designed to take a hit from a 707, but not fully fueled, but allas both buildings did withstand it long enough to let most of the people escape


Oh yeah ... the engineer merely figure a plane would simply glide into the building ... no need to include fuel in their calculations. Bwaa ha ha ha!
They didn't escape because those building were demo.
Oh and I wonder how this genius knows all these things? He hasn't backed any of his statement so it safe to say once again ... blowing shit out his ass.
 


Big P said:


> when you have that much fuel in one place at that speed it doesnt all instantly evaporate or turn into mist. much of it ignites and is dropped through the surrounding floors of the building through the momentom of the fuel and the force of gravity creating huge infernos on certain floors. these localized infernos on the surrounding floors would melt steel easily this is a simple fact


Says the dummy with no clue! Bwaa ha ha ha ... 




Big P said:


> once enough time had passed for the infernos to comprimise the structures of the surrounding floors they were weakend enough to fail and collapse,


Complete and total bullshit. No way could that fire weaken that steel ... it is physically impossible. Proved by science.




Big P said:


> one floor pancakes on the floor below it which is also weakend by the fire, then the weight of 2 of those falling floors hit the next and then those 3 floors hit the next floor and the next and you have a collapse of the whole structure.


Pure bullshit ... the pancake theory was debunk long ago by Kevin Ryan ... check out page 24 post 239 ... and this ...
Kevin Ryan debunks pancake theory
Shyam Sunder of NIST, promoting the Pancake Theory in a Popular Mechanics interview *even after that theory was proven to be incorrect*, a US government scientist (Garcia) can say whatever he wants in an informal media presentation. And in this case, Garcia does just that, *repeating many unsubstantiated claims, and even adding some new ones*. 
And this ...
The Peculiar WTC Experts By Kevin Ryan
Unfortunately, the credentialed experts were wrong again. Until NISTs final report came out in 2005, the Pancake Theory had replaced the column failure theory as the most widely accepted explanation for collapse. FEMA, along with a professor of Engineering from Northwestern, Zdenek Bazant, championed this theory of pancaking floors as the major explanation for the collapse of both towers, directly contradicting the Silverstein-Weidlinger report. This was strange, considering many of the same experts were involved in both the FEMA and Weidlinger investigations, including Gene Corley. 
Amazingly enough, *just last summer NIST finally admitted that the explanation could not involve pancaking floors either, by saying NISTs findings do not support the pancake theory of collapse.*
So much for the bullshit pancake theory.



Big P said:


> its really a ridicules argument, you guys are actling like these building are infalable


No we are acting like these buildings could not have fallen down the way they did, because they were design to withstand what happen to them.



Big P said:


> you ever heard the expression where there is smoke there is fire?


Ever hear of the term blowing it out your ass?



Big P said:


> well i submit to you your own picture
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See the difference between that fire and this one?










Big P said:


> did you know that the plume was even visible from space???


oooh can you really? Wow! 




Big P said:


> are you telling me that a plume of smoke that can be seen from space is not being caused by a monstrous fire??


Monstrous fire? Not compared to the picture Ilkhan posted. And notice the steel is still standing after burning way longer than any of the WTC towers. Of course no mention of why this building is still standing. 








Big P said:


> you ever seen a bonfire that big??


Ummm yeah ... we have ... and the steel didn't collapse genius.



Big P said:


> but your right that doesnt look like somthing that would cause that building to collapse its barely even a scratch


You are right ... it isn't ... that's the first correct statement he has made thus far



Big P said:


> touche'


 
You got that right


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

Hi everybody ... I found some more video debunking the debunkers ... I think it's in 16 parts so I won't do a write up on them. I haven't had a chance to view them myself, but I will put them up and make a comment on the important points after I see the film. I will do four videos per post.
Also there is an intro video ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tovqJQC2tA&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tovqJQC2tA&feature=related9/11 Un-debunked: Introduction
[youtube]6tovqJQC2tA&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 1
[youtube]ABc1TSBO7_Y&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 2
[youtube]zflTmmzZoWA&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 3
[youtube]gt3Mlmz24CA&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 4
[youtube]LD-JpkabsTw&feature=related[/youtube]

So far the videos are mostly statement made by NIST and the truthers ... plus still shots and diagrams of the buildings. Plus scientific facts. This is one of four post ... stay tune for part two of four.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 5
[youtube]UkLX71q7bYk&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 6
[youtube]9EkWD60qG1M&feature=related[/youtube]


9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 7
[youtube]hjaDiNKupEE&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 8
[youtube]Dn0BN8oKm3E&feature=related[/youtube]

Post 3 coming up!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 9
[youtube]XZEwl6beopQ&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 10
[youtube]WDEQVnK5km0&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 11
[youtube]3YSht9Vg9Ls&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 12
[youtube]FrftkQ_vaUM&feature=related[/youtube]

Okay ... on to part 4 ... stay tuned.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 13
[youtube]XUNJStOIyLo&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 14
[youtube]PvgGVRsmabY&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 15
[youtube]i6EeiWcSVmw&feature=related[/youtube]

9/11 Un-debunked: An Answer to RKOwens4 and Other Internet Debunkers Part 16
[youtube]F0DsbgWmk3s&feature=related[/youtube]

After I watch this I will post key points.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

Yes, post your key points to the 3 other ppl who believe this nonsense!!! \


Lookey here folks!!! Look! Over here!!! I've got something!!!! Lawdy


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

Post 1171.... the "truther" does not know how to debate and doesn't seem to have his facts in context. That debate was a mismatch.....


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

Video one ... 
The official story of the collapse of the twin towers is that gravity caused them to crush themselves...
There are principally two official theories: The column failure theory and the truss failure theory. Both are frequently called "pancake theories" 
Let's examine NIST's report on the damage to each building.
WTC 1:35 ext. columns severed
6 core columns severed 43 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation
WTC 2: 33 ext. columns severed. 10 core columns severed ... 39 of 42 core columns stripped of insulation
PROBLEM
People in the towers at the time of the impact reported sways of several feet. But the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experience in winter storms.
Investigators diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They showed about 13% of the north tower's perimeter columns broken and 10% of the south tower's broken. (diagrams shown)
Thus both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns.
And there are several problems with NIST claims about the damage to the south tower.
First the core columns were thicker on the lower floors, where they had more weight to support. The core columns at the south tower's 80th floor, which was the impact zone, would have been considerably thicker than the core columns at the north tower's 95th floor impact zone. They would have been much more difficult to severe.
Second the north tower was hit straight on, as is evident from video and pictures.(diagram shown) ... but the south tower as video and pictures show (shows more still shots) was struck near the right corner, with the result that the right engine exited the building with little obstruction(shows photo of engine)
The fuselage of the jet that crashed into the south tower appears to have almost entirely missed the core structure. * In fact, only the plane's left wing and engine would have been able to any damage to the core. *But the wing, being made of aluminum and having already encountered perimeter columns *would probably not have been able to severe any of the much thicker columns*. NIST itself has stated that an engine could severe one column at most.
If it seems that only one or two of the south tower's core columns could have been severed where did NIST get the figure of 10?
*The highly redundant connection of perimeter columns via the horizontal spandrell plates on every floor assured that gravity loads of the broken columns were easily transferred to other parts of the wall. * The fires were not nearly hot enough to significantly soften steel in either tower. The fires in the south tower were small compared to other high-rise fires, and were diminishing at the time of it's collapse. In both towers, the smoke darken a few minutes after the crashes, suggesting that most of the jet fuel had burned off. * Dark smoke indicated oxygen starved fire.* In both towers, there was no visible areas of fire extending to large portions of multiple adjacent floors .. (shows still shots) Hot fires would have to simultaneously cover several entire floors to have any chance of heating the columns to 800 degrees C. The fires remained confined to the crash zone in the south tower and never spread to the other side of the building. STRONG FIRES TEND TO SPREAD. The exterior columns were not visibly glowing red hot as they would have had they been above 700 degrees C
So this is what was covered in the first video. Clearly it debunks those idiots and their pancake theories. It's too time consuming to do a break down like this ... I will have to give a brief summary of the others.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Post 1171.... the "truther" does not know how to debate and doesn't seem to have his facts in context. That debate was a mismatch.....


Says the dummy that has done nothing other than blow shit out his ass. Notice he doesn't back what he states. Doesn't show where the facts weren't in context. Nothing new there.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

You can keep trying to bury folks in videos... but it just makes you look more crazy...... 

Quite a little cottage industry conspiracies are....  


Boy, they sure hooked you line and sinker....


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You can keep trying to bury folks in videos... but it just makes you look more crazy......


You mean the videos that make you look like an idiot? ... those videos? ... you mean the ones that have shown facts and science that you can't deny ... those video? I only look crazy to a dumbass like you, which doesn't bother me in the least. In your delusional mind anyone that accept science and facts over the government conspiracy theory is crazy.



CrackerJax said:


> Quite a little cottage industry conspiracies are....


Are you hoping that if you keep saying that it will come true? ... it's obvious it isn't ... you've offered no proof ... just shooting your mouth off as usual.  Help this asshole out folks! I appeal to your better nature! Is there ANYONE reading this thread that has paid money for any of the 911 information out there? Anyone?




CrackerJax said:


> Boy, they sure hooked you line and sinker....


Wow ... I can say the exact same thing about you and the people really behind 911. 

That wasn't even a nice try, and you still look like an kiss-ass

Folks I emailed the group who put out the film I posted. I asked if they had a transcript of the movie ... they didn't, but said they would make one for me ... which I thought was most kind. They may even include the pictures that was in the film. Look for that, for those of you that don't like watching videos.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

No, these vid's don't make ANYONE look like an idiot. They just show us the gullible. People who are easily misled by their pre set prejudices.

Keep going GR.... this completely suits you!!!!!


----------



## kappainf (Aug 13, 2009)

Wow, there are people that actually believe 911 was an "inside job". News to me.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 13, 2009)

There are three ppl.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 13, 2009)

I wish. My faith in people would find itself a little healthier.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No, these vid's don't make ANYONE look like an idiot.


Oh yeah it does ... blows your bullshit clean out of the water. It truly exposes you as the idiot you are.



CrackerJax said:


> They just show us the gullible. People who are easily misled by their pre set prejudices.


You and the rest of the deniers are the only ones that are gullible. You take the government word over undeniable scientific facts ... now if that's not gullible I don't know what is. You are the one that is prejudice ... against undeniable facts ... get a grip.



CrackerJax said:


> Keep going GR.... this completely suits you!!!!!


And being an idiot suit you!



kappainf said:


> Wow, there are people that actually believe 911 was an "inside job". News to me.


Wow ... where have you been? Under a rock? Tons of evidence in this thread proving 911 was an inside job.



CrackerJax said:


> There are three ppl.


Bwaa ha ha ha .... I love it when I can show how much you blow shit out your ass ... three people eh? I'll just show the polls that were done on this site.
Recent RIU 911 poll
Another RIU 911 poll
There was another 911 poll done here, but it's so far back I can't find it. Of course I have other polls in the thread showing most people believe 911 was an inside job. So much for your 3 people bullshit. Don't you just love it when I catch you blowing shit out your ass. I certainly do.



what... huh? said:


> I wish. My faith in people would find itself a little healthier.


OMG! Is that your wife?

Folks while I was looking for polls I found a couple of interesting posts. One was put up a long time ago by med ... check it.
Just a few facts about 911 part 1
part 2 more facts
more facts part 3
More fact part 4
More facts part 5
... and then there is this google video with Aaron Russo before he died, talking about Nick Rockefeller admitting they planned 911.

Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population
For those that haven't seen this I recommend you watch it. 14 minutes long.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 14, 2009)

i wonder how many people have actually changed their opinion based on a post at RIU.

i guess we all gotta do something with our time.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i wonder how many people have actually changed their opinion based on a post at RIU.
> 
> i guess we all gotta do something with our time.


I'm willing to bet that there have been ... I get private emails thanking me for the thread. 
FDD I've been wanting to talk to you about my grow ... would it be inappropriate to PM you about my problem?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i wonder how many people have actually changed their opinion based on a post at RIU.
> 
> i guess we all gotta do something with our time.


I did.


Natrone says that the majority of people he saw killed in Iraq were not foreign insurgents, but native Iraqis... who he sees as defending their homeland from foreign oppressors. 

I just sort of looked at it as though we were helping... which is a sort of myopic view. I do not mean to say that we ARE what we may be viewed as... but the notion of defending your homeland vs trying to destroy a free society is a paradigm shift my views took.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 14, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I'm willing to bet that there have been ... I get private emails thanking me for the thread.
> FDD I've been wanting to talk to you about my grow ... would it be inappropriate to PM you about my problem?


you should start a thread. then everybody can learn. 


i have changed 100's of people's lives.  

looking at my post count you can see what i do with all my time. now i gotta just find a youtube vid to mesh in with all this.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

[youtube]fbGkxcY7YFU[/youtube]


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 14, 2009)

Check it out folks I found the deniers game plan. Now we know where they get their shit from. 

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

This describes them to a T ... check it out ...
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
 2. Become incredulous and indignant
 3. Create rumor mongers
 4. Use a straw man
 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
 6. Hit and Run
 7. Question motives
 8. Invoke authority
 9. Play Dumb
 10. Associate opponent charges with old news
 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
 12. Enigmas have no solution
 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
 14. Demand complete solutions
 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
 17. Change the subject
 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
 19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
 20. False evidence
 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
 22. Manufacture a new truth
 23. Create bigger distractions
 24. Silence critics
 25. Vanish

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
 1. Avoidance
 2. Selectivity
 3. Coincidental
 4. Teamwork
 5. Anti-conspiratorial
 6. Artificial Emotions
 7. Inconsistent
 8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by *describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations*. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
Definitely one of their ploys.



5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth.


7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to *imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias*. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Heard this one before too.



8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', *and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources*.
Sounds like them doesn't it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 14, 2009)

Hi folks ... this video clearly shows the explosions going off before the WTC collapsed into it's own footprint. But watch the deniers deny ... 
911 Debunked Mystery Explosions EXPOSED
[youtube]qpwRvo0SmMM[/youtube]
Watch very carefully ... they circle the flashes so you can see ... no doubt ... those buildings were demo.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 14, 2009)

Bah it was just left over fireworks that employees kept in their desks from the previous 4th of July.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 14, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> [youtube]fbGkxcY7YFU[/youtube]



That's REALLY GAY!!!!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 14, 2009)

Hummm ... I think WH may go both ways ... 

Check this out ... I don't know if any of you watch Real Time with Bill Maher, but he has ridiculed the truth movement and they put out a video about it. 
I believe Maher is afraid of getting fire again, and there is probably pressure from on high to stick with the government conspiracy theory.
Real Time problems with Bill Maher? 
[youtube]s8ZzLLkAjxU[/youtube]


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 14, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Bah it was just left over fireworks that employees kept in their desks from the previous 4th of July.


Obviously!  What else could it be?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 14, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Obviously!  What else could it be?


explosives planted by our own government.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 14, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> That's REALLY GAY!!!!


(so is this thread)


I guess my overactive participation in it should give my wife pause.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you should start a thread. then everybody can learn.


 I have ... it seems to stump everyone I've talked to about it. Even my friend who is one hell of a fine breeder can't figure it out. I need a specialist. Whoa ... you DO have a lot of posts.


fdd2blk said:


> explosives planted by our own government.


No ... 


what... huh? said:


> (so is this thread)


So what?
And what's up with the slightly pregnant woman?

You guys have seen the video with Russo talking about Nick Rockefeller before right?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 15, 2009)




----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 15, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


>


Check it folks ... this one's number 5 right from their disinformation play book ...
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth.
Number 9 fits too. How much do you want to bet the dummy looked through the play book before putting up the stupid picture. Bwaa ha ha ha ... they have to refer to their disinformation play book before they post.
Do you practices being an idiot or does it come naturally?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 15, 2009)

It is suggesting that what you are doing is disgraceful to the dead... not name calling. It demonstrates your excitement in desecrating the memories of the victims and first responders.

You don't have number for that. 

It is the same point I made back around pg 50. It is the reason I bother to engage the more rational.

The subtlety is obviously lost on you... because you don't care about the dead. You care about slandering your government, and will commit any moral obscenity to do so.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 15, 2009)

Folks jf put up a great post so I'm putting it up here for the record. Nice going jf





Fake Al Qaeda Actors EXPOSED! Adam Gadahn & Yousef al-Khattab
[youtube]GsUtvOW6SR0[/youtube]
I see other videos discussing the fake Al Qaeda ... I will check them out and post them if they are any good.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 15, 2009)

It wasn't OBVIOUS enough for GR.... who can garner attention to himself (the goal) by copy/pasting non stop super sleuth detective work lol, but the NOT SO SUBTLE cartoon ELUDES him!!!  Heh, GR reminds me of Gollum.........


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 15, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> It is suggesting that what you are doing is disgraceful to the dead... not name calling.


What am I doing?




what... huh? said:


> It demonstrates your excitement in desecrating the memories of the victims and first responders.


And this folks that I posted way back on page 37 post 365 are they desecrating the memories too?
[youtube]TzC3QI8JenU&feature=email[/youtube]

Now go take a course in "shut up"




what... huh? said:


> You don't have number for that.


Oh no? Check it out folks this one is a number 2 .... number 2
2. *Become incredulous and indignant*. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
See folks ... they get all their shit right from the disinformation play book ... 



what... huh? said:


> It is the same point I made back around pg 50. It is the reason I bother to engage the more rational.


Your bullshit don't fly with them either.



what... huh? said:


> The subtlety is obviously lost on you...


Yeah ... stupidity and ignorance too.




what... huh? said:


> because you don't care about the dead.


number 2 ... number 2 ... 



what... huh? said:


> You care about slandering your government, and will commit any moral obscenity to do so.


number 2 ... number 2 ... 
I care about the truth ... and accountability ... you care about obstruction, disinformation, and protecting war criminals.
 



CrackerJax said:


> It wasn't OBVIOUS enough for GR....


It's pretty obvious to everyone except you deniers ... just another opportunity to make you guys look . Thanks!



CrackerJax said:


> who can garner attention to himself (the goal) by copy/pasting non stop super sleuth detective work


Yeah ... and it's way more than you could ever hope to accomplish ... number 18 ... number 18
18. *Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.* If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'



CrackerJax said:


> but the NOT SO SUBTLE cartoon ELUDES him!!! Heh, GR reminds me of Gollum.........


Folks do you think she can post without referring to her disinformation play book. I doubt it.
... oh yeah ... and she continues to use number 1 and number 9
1.* Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil*. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
9. *Play Dumb*. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
We really got you assholes pegged now! Bwaa ha ha ha ha.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 15, 2009)

You are forced to feign nobility in your pursuit. You show victims of families, who listen to your stupid ass in times of grief and props them up there asking questions. Because you use this grief to stab at your government.


I am willing to bet pretty good money that this is not the only conspiracy theory you have against the government.


How many do you have? Make me a list of what people should be aware of that their government is doing... that is denied by the government.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You are forced to feign nobility in your pursuit. You show victims of families, who listen to your stupid ass in times of grief and props them up there asking questions. Because you use this grief to stab at your government.
> 
> 
> I am willing to bet pretty good money that this is not the only conspiracy theory you have against the government.
> ...


Aint there a bigger word for all the slandering you are doing? I dont give a fuc bout that but what I DO GIVE A FUCK ABOUT is history teachers are going to try an teach MY kids that fires melt steel and that a bunch of "gangs" knocked down Wtc buildings ??? C'mon ! HELL NO ... I will be in school that day to protest..... and if i go to jail then the kids in that class will NEVER forget the crazy man that came into school rantin an ravin bout how our own government blew those up! And just maybe a couple of them will want to know what really happened that day.... I am sorry ms. bigword but I REFUSE TO LET THEM TRY AND TEACH MY KIDS THAT CRAP!!! and the first time my kids jump on the welder with me then they will know just how hot it has to be to melt steel. If growreb popped in right now and said EVERYTHING he wrote in all those post were False, then i would call him a liar and devote myself to this thread......... no choice, someone has to do it!

KEEP IT UP REB! 
u too drama!


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

I have shown, several times, steel melted by fire alone. To continue the "fire doesn't melt steel" rhetoric is just annoying at this stage.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I have shown, several times, steel melted by fire alone. To continue the "fire doesn't melt steel" rhetoric is just annoying at this stage.



SHOW ME PLEASE!  of course fire can melt steel , but at what temp ? and how long do u have to "hold" that temp ?............. there is 1200 post on this thread u just point me there and im on it.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

20 minutes. Vehicle fire. 6 4ft thick steel I beams.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

never mind dont waste your time! you are defiantly a coverup dummy. Do they pay u for this shit? everything you say makes since .....BUT you are NOT open to suggestion. All of us ARE open for suggestion, but you are not suggesting NOTHING , only trying to prove us wrong!? The chances of all 3 of those buildings comin down like that ARE IMPOSSIBLE! I know fire weakens steel but weak steel is ALOT stronger then you are implicating. Weak steel bends easy , but not easy enough for all 3 buildings to fall at almost free fall speed (i didnt say faster than, i said ALMOST) I just cant believe they pay folks like you just to prove a bunch a potheads wrong.........You are sick ! you go ahead and let YOUR kids believe that shit. The friends i have that DO believe the official report dont have a big media telling them different so its not their fault they are ignorant. You though.... you know the truth and still refuse to believe? or you are paid. Either way alot of folks were murdered that day , and i dont know who done it, but i do know the official report is WAAAAAY OFF! and ever since that day , folks have made millions off this "war" ..................just plain sick 


love a real american


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> 20 minutes. Vehicle fire. 6 4ft thick steel I beams.


EXACTLY !! the beams are *BENT*, not gone or melted , come the fuck on , you can do better than that............cant you ? the concrete aint even broke WTF ???


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

Lol.

Try not to presume MY reason for disproving your assumptions.

20 minutes.

Did you notice the very large holes in the WTC's 1 & 2? 

Did you notice the steel girders were no longer there?

Do you understand that the oppressive weight of the dozens of floors above were now shifted, and intense fire raged across several floors for much longer than 20 minutes around the remaining overstressed steel? Do you have any idea what 20+ floors an acre each weighs? MASSIVE forces at work here... unlike any in history.

Did you notice that WTC 1&2 collapsed from the top down, unlike any demo in history... without the concussive explosions associated in EVERY demo you will ever find? 


Keep lying to yourself... I don't give a shit... but don't presume WHY I debunk.


So you accept now that fire melts steel I take it. Awesome. We can now move from there.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

We will never see pics close enough to see explosives (except the ones that are already out there)
So which one is it ? Did they implode "unlike any other demo" OR did it burn "unlike any other building in history" ? (3 times in one day) Now u are with me!


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

I never suggested they turned to liquid. I suggested they failed... with 20 floors an acre wide above them.


The absence of them is due to the impact of hundreds of thousands of pounds slamming into it at 600 mph.


You- "Fire doesn't melt steel, prove it"

Me- shows you evidence of that fact with folded melted steel ibeams from 20 minutes of fire.

You- "you're a dummy"


And I can do better? Please. Tell me I was in on it now. Tell me I work for the Bush administration.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

"SHOW ME PLEASE!  of course fire can melt steel , but at what temp ? and how long do u have to "hold" that temp ?"
i think it plainly states that fire can melt steel , hell thats how we cut it..... so i give up your right fire can melt steel
i dont know or care who u work for but you are like the only person that is , tryin to debunk this shit. We dont need to argue no more , my kids will not learn that bullshit in school and i will always show them folks that died the respect they deserve. bottem line.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> We will never see pics close enough to see explosives (except the ones that are already out there)
> So which one is it ? Did they implode "unlike any other demo" OR did it burn "unlike any other building in history" ? (3 times in one day) Now u are with me!


Demolition explosives are concussive at street level. There is TONS of video of the collapse from street level. Not so much as a bang.


This would require bang on EVERY floor in SEVERAL locations to bring it down from the top down.

There are NONE.

[youtube]o1Vu15D_0oI[/youtube]

[youtube]8OQWz7xlINA[/youtube]

You can hear the helicopter. No explosions.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> "SHOW ME PLEASE!  of course fire can melt steel , but at what temp ? and how long do u have to "hold" that temp ?"
> i think it plainly states that fire can melt steel , hell thats how we cut it..... so i give up your right fire can melt steel
> i dont know or care who u work for but you are like the only person that is , tryin to debunk this shit. We dont need to argue no more , my kids will not learn that bullshit in school and i will always show them folks that died the respect they deserve. bottem line.


It was a gas fire. Gas fires do not reach even close to the melting point of steel.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> EXACTLY !! the beams are *BENT*, not gone or melted , come the fuck on , you can do better than that............cant you ? the concrete aint even broke WTF ???



the beams are sheared at road level and that's NOT concrete, it's asphalt. asphalt bends when it's hot silly.

just thought i'd clear that up. has nothing to do with the current debate.


----------



## huffy420 (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> It was a gas fire. Gas fires do not reach even close to the melting point of steel.


Hahahahah dude u have spent the last 100 pages trying to prove a fuel fire reaches temps to melt steel, then this statement?! Hah just shoot yourself in the foot again why dont ya? So where does the red melted steel come from thats pouring from the tower? And dont say aluminum from the plane cause thats false! One aluminum is not red, two the red flames
and black smoke obviously scream suffocated fire not some "raging" inferno that you seem to think. It amazes me how you contradict yourself as the agrument progresses. 

No explosions eh? Thats why the word "explosions" was stated more times by eye witnesses then any other word. But what do they know?... They were on at "street level" or inside the fuckin building... Get real! ur watchin a video kn the internet thats takin like 20 or 30 blocks away, but somehow thats more justifiable then physically being present LOL u crack me up


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

aluminum does turn red when molten. i weld it, i know. 

you all really should get your facts straight. i'm not on one side or the other and i see all the errors.


----------



## huffy420 (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> aluminum does turn red when molten. i weld it, i know.
> 
> you all really should get your facts straight. i'm not on one side or the other and i see all the errors.


Mayb u should get ur facts straight! It turns red at extremely high temps. Not an office fire! Just cause u weld it dont mean shit! Im a third gen welder and have been for a long time the only thing that turn red when welding aluminum is the tungsten rod in the stinger. It turns a slight shade of red under preheat but once torch is removed the material coolsl back to silver color VERY quickly mostly cause the argon blowing on it, either way it doesnt stay a red color as its melted unless continuous heat( assuming it hot enough to make alum turn red) is applied It takes alot of heat and amps to weld aluminum... But u weld it right?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Hahahahah dude u have spent the last 100 pages trying to prove a fuel fire reaches temps to melt steel, then this statement?! Hah just shoot yourself in the foot again why dont ya? So where does the red melted steel come from thats pouring from the tower? And dont say aluminum from the plane cause thats false! One aluminum is not red, two the red flames
> and black smoke obviously scream suffocated fire not some "raging" inferno that you seem to think. It amazes me how you contradict yourself as the agrument progresses.
> 
> No explosions eh? Thats why the word "explosions" was stated more times by eye witnesses then any other word. But what do they know?... They were on at "street level" or inside the fuckin building... Get real! ur watchin a video kn the internet thats takin like 20 or 30 blocks away, but somehow thats more justifiable then physically being present LOL u crack me up





huffy420 said:


> Mayb u should get ur facts straight! It turns red at extremely high temps. Not an office fire! Just cause u weld it dont mean shit! Im a third gen welder and have been for a long time the only thing that turn red when welding aluminum is the tungsten rod in the stinger. It turns a slight shade of red under preheat but once torch is removed the material coolsl back to silver color VERY quickly mostly cause the argon blowing on it, either way it doesnt stay a red color as its melted unless continuous heat( assuming it hot enough to make alum turn red) is applied It takes alot of heat and amps to weld aluminum... But u weld it right?


yes i do weld, mig actually so we don't use tungsten. the aluminum puddle turns red if you hold it in place. 

you said, and i highlight and quote, "aluminum is NOT red". then you go on to say it turns red. 

you were mistaken or not quite clear on your statement. 

why you so pissy about it though?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

Any idea what this looks like when an office fire ignites it?







Any idea what temp a LiON UPS burns at?




Any idea how many were in the WTC?


----------



## huffy420 (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> yes i do weld, mig actually so we don't use tungsten. the aluminum puddle turns red if you hold it in place. View attachment 512377
> 
> you said, and i highlight and quote, "aluminum is NOT red". then you go on to say it turns red.
> 
> ...




My apologies, i didnt mean to come off that way, i sounded like a bitchy asshole.


Let me try to clear up my own confusion...

The fire that burned within the towers were not hot enough to turn aluminum to the same color red as the melted material that was pouring from the towers. In that sense, NO aluminum will not turn red.... its not hot enough.

I TIG weld aluminum, where as you MIG it using a spool fed set-up. Correct?

Either way, they both use a large amount of heat and amps to preheat the aluminum to weldable temperatures. Temps WAY hotter then inside the towers.

So in a sense YES aluminum turns red, under extremely high temps(aka welding or a smelter). But when aluminum reaches its melting point its still silvery in color. You mush then apply MORE heat to get it to its red color.

Does that make more sence?
Sorry again for being pissy


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

i'm not debating. just stating facts. i clearly stated this. 

world trade center what? 

all i know is aluminum can turn red when molten. just a fdd fun fact.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Mayb u should get ur facts straight! It turns red at extremely high temps. Not an office fire! Just cause u weld it dont mean shit! Im a third gen welder and have been for a long time the only thing that turn red when welding aluminum is the tungsten rod in the stinger. It turns a slight shade of red under preheat but once torch is removed the material coolsl back to silver color VERY quickly mostly cause the argon blowing on it, either way it doesnt stay a red color as its melted unless continuous heat( assuming it hot enough to make alum turn red) is applied It takes alot of heat and amps to weld aluminum... But u weld it right?



All metals turn the same approximate color at the same temperature. 




















Aluminum is odd because of its emmisivity. 

I believe it was a slurry of burning shit, including aluminum.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Hahahahah dude u have spent the last 100 pages trying to prove a fuel fire reaches temps to melt steel, then this statement?! Hah just shoot yourself in the foot again why dont ya? So where does the red melted steel come from thats pouring from the tower? And dont say aluminum from the plane cause thats false! One aluminum is not red, two the red flames
> and black smoke obviously scream suffocated fire not some "raging" inferno that you seem to think. It amazes me how you contradict yourself as the agrument progresses.
> 
> No explosions eh? Thats why the word "explosions" was stated more times by eye witnesses then any other word. But what do they know?... They were on at "street level" or inside the fuckin building... Get real! ur watchin a video kn the internet thats takin like 20 or 30 blocks away, but somehow thats more justifiable then physically being present LOL u crack me up


It is an issue of misusing terms. What do you call steel heating enough to become rubbery? That is what I am referring to when I say "melt". Become rubbery and lose rigidity... not the "melting point"... which is a misnomer attache by truthers in the famous line "fire does not melt steel". I am referring to the transfer state of steel which causes collapse... not the point at which it becomes a liquid.


I just showed you raw video of the collapse, where you could HEAR THE FUCKING HELICOPTER.

No explosions.

None. I don't even know how this is debatable.


----------



## huffy420 (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> It is an issue of misusing terms. What do you call steel heating enough to become rubbery? That is what I am referring to when I say "melt". Become rubbery and lose rigidity... not the "melting point"... which is a misnomer attache by truthers in the famous line "fire does not melt steel". I am referring to the transfer state of steel which causes collapse... not the point at which it becomes a liquid.
> 
> 
> I just showed you raw video of the collapse, where you could HEAR THE FUCKING HELICOPTER.
> ...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY

boom boom bitch people are already talking about explosions and the towers havent even fallen yet.

But youll just deny and say "Nope no explosions"


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 16, 2009)

I think it was aliens what did it. In a space ship with their ray guns set on "crumple giant building" setting. The planes where actually a hologram from the aliens hologram ray, set on "giant airplane" setting and never actually hit any buildings at all cause they weren't real. The purpose of this was to disrupt the "Men In Black" meeting taking place on the 12 floor. I expect them to show up at all our doors very soon to use their"flashy thing" technology to erase ouir memories.

also WW2 was all a hoax. Their is no Germany. It's a make believe country made up by the U.S. government so they could extend their influence over Europe and kill all the Jews who were there in a mad imperialist plot. 
Also Ossama Bin Ladden was a swell guy so quit slandering him. RIP ossama, my friend. I loved you and not in a gay way. Not in a Gay way at all.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You are forced to feign nobility in your pursuit.


It is the disinformationalist/deniers that are force to do that.



what... huh? said:


> You show victims of families, who listen to your stupid ass in times of grief and props them up there asking questions. Because you use this grief to stab at your government.


Number 7 .... number 7 ... 
7. *Question motives*. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Oh yes of course ... I had those people over my house one day and fed on their grief ... the rest is history. 




what... huh? said:


> I am willing to bet pretty good money that this is not the only conspiracy theory you have against the government.


Number 2 ... number 2 ...
17. *Change the subject*. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.



what... huh? said:


> How many do you have? Make me a list of what people should be aware of that their government is doing... that is denied by the government.


I have a better idea ... how about you making a list of the times you've tried and failed to side track the issue.



what... huh? said:


> I have shown, several times, steel melted by fire alone. To continue the "fire doesn't melt steel" rhetoric is just annoying at this stage.


Number 8 .... number 8 ....
8. *Invoke authority*. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
No already busted you for this way back on page 46 ... we are saying an normal office fire and jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel ... what part of that don't you get?



what... huh? said:


> 20 minutes. Vehicle fire. 6 4ft thick steel I beams.


Number 20 .... number 20 ....
20. *False evidence*. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
This bullshit was debunked way back when ... notice folks that the beams on the bridge that were not touch by the fire are still standing ... yet the government would have us believe that those beams at the WTC that were not touch by fire got weak and failed at the exact same time! Those building fell with no resistance what so ever. What happen to the steel that wasn't touched by the fire? WH would like to think undamaged steel offers no resistance.




what... huh? said:


> Lol.
> Try not to presume MY reason for disproving your assumptions.
> 20 minutes.
> Did you notice the very large holes in the WTC's 1 & 2?
> Did you notice the steel girders were no longer there?


again ... number 20 ... number 20 ...
Investigators diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They showed about *13%* of the north tower's perimeter columns broken and *10%* of the south tower's broken. 



what... huh? said:


> Do you understand that the oppressive weight of the dozens of floors above were now shifted,


number 20 again ... hum ... we debunked the pancake theory back in post 1175
Kevin Ryan Debunks pancake theory



what... huh? said:


> and intense fire raged across several floors for much longer than 20 minutes around the remaining overstressed steel?


You obviously don't know the meaning of intense fire ... pictures of real intense fires have been posted, burn a hell of a lot longer than the WTC and the steel remind standing ... why is that? You still can explain what happen to the steel that wasn't touched by fire.



what... huh? said:


> Do you have any idea what 20+ floors an acre each weighs? MASSIVE forces at work here... unlike any in history.


number 8 ... again ... number 8
"MASSIVE forces" sorry been debunked.



what... huh? said:


> Did you notice that WTC 1&2 collapsed from the top down, unlike any demo in history... without the concussive explosions associated in EVERY demo you will ever find?


Try and pay attention ... this video clearly shows explosions going off and witnesses reporting explosions ... posted back on page 120 post 1197

911 Debunked Mystery Explosions EXPOSED
[youtube]qpwRvo0SmMM[/youtube]
I like the music too ... make me want to dance!!



what... huh? said:


> Keep lying to yourself... I don't give a shit... but don't presume WHY I debunk.


 No you keep lying to yourself ... we will continue to put up evidence proving 911 was an inside job.



what... huh? said:


> So you accept now that fire melts steel I take it. Awesome. We can now move from there.


No ... we accept "certain fires" can melt steel, but not the fires on 911 ... get it?



what... huh? said:


> I never suggested they turned to liquid. I suggested they failed... with 20 floors an acre wide above them.


Well your "suggestion" has no bases in fact or science.
 



what... huh? said:


> The absence of them is due to the impact of hundreds of thousands of pounds slamming into it at 600 mph.


again ... number 8 ...number 8



what... huh? said:


> You- "Fire doesn't melt steel, prove it"


No ... the fire that hit the WTC couldn't have melted the steel ... it wasn't hot enough and cooled 15 minutes after impact ... the black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire.



what... huh? said:


> Me- shows you evidence of that fact with folded melted steel ibeams from 20 minutes of fire.


Which was debunked long ago.



what... huh? said:


> You- "you're a dummy"


Bwaa ha ha ha ... that's a correct statement!




what... huh? said:


> And I can do better?


So far ... ah ... no.



what... huh? said:


> Please. Tell me I was in on it now. Tell me I work for the Bush administration.


Number 22 .... number 22 ... 
22. *Manufacture a new truth*. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.



what... huh? said:


> Demolition explosives are concussive at street level. There is TONS of video of the collapse from street level. Not so much as a bang.


Number 16 ... number 16
16. *Vanish evidence and witnesses*. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.



what... huh? said:


> This would require bang on EVERY floor in SEVERAL locations to bring it down from the top down.
> There are NONE.
> You can hear the helicopter. No explosions.


Oh yeah ... those witnesses in the above video who were on the scene ... well ... they were just imagining explosions. 




what... huh? said:


> It was a gas fire. Gas fires do not reach even close to the melting point of steel.


Yeah ... and neither does jet fuel. So you just debunked your own bridge bullshit.

This was fun ... let's do it again shall we?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> I think it was aliens what did it. In a space ship with their ray guns set on "crumple giant building" setting. The planes where actually a hologram from the aliens hologram ray, set on "giant airplane" setting and never actually hit any buildings at all cause they weren't real. The purpose of this was to disrupt the "Men In Black" meeting taking place on the 12 floor.


Number 5 ... number 5
5.* Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule*. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach



huffy420 said:


> boom boom bitch people are already talking about explosions and the towers havent even fallen yet.
> But youll just deny and say "Nope no explosions"


Huffy! Welcome back! Great video ... that's ... I post it were folks can check it out here ...
9/11 Eyewitness to Twin Towers Basement Explosion?
[youtube]egIrVyM3FGY[/youtube]


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY
> 
> boom boom bitch people are already talking about explosions and the towers havent even fallen yet.
> 
> But youll just deny and say "Nope no explosions"



You aren't understanding anything I am saying. Controlled demolition requires multiple charges which go off in concert AT THE TIME OF DESTRUCTION.

The guy was in the basement when the plane hit... YEAH THERE WAS A FUCKING BOOM... and flaming jet A poured down an elevator shaft.







Yeah... I expect he heard that in the basement.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 16, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY
> 
> boom boom bitch people are already talking about explosions and the towers havent even fallen yet.
> 
> But youll just deny and say "Nope no explosions"


Good vid! Both towers still standing and he is saying the building went off/the elevator blew up IN THE BASEMENT.

Not that this is what I believe but this is what I thought when I seen this vid. Person near the impact is lit a blaze while getting on or near the elevator while trying to escape. while in the elevator the heat melts the cables and it plummets to the basement. Guy working in basement hears an explosion and finds said person without any skin. 

I'm actually starting to lean towards the "hutchinson effect" theory. It's a new one I just made up. Not the effect but the theory. If you've seen the effect you'll know the theory.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

you all look crazy. seriously, every post just makes it worse.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

I guess the Firemen in the videos telling people to get back because the towers were being taken down isn't proof enough.

No matter how much evidence you present, there will still be people that deny it. These are the same people that will need padded rooms when they find out the truth.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

So you think a person survived witnessing an explosion, even dragging people out, in a detonation so immense... it brought down a building from the top down an hour and a half later.

Perfectly logical, perfectly rational.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> I guess the Firemen in the videos telling people to get back because the towers were being taken down isn't proof enough.
> 
> No matter how much evidence you present, there will still be people that deny it. These are the same people that will need padded rooms when they find out the truth.


They pulled building 6.

You want to tell me the firemen were complicit in killing over 300 of their brethren.

You people are sick.

I am officially done. This is just arguing with a bunch of stop signs. You are not rational... demonstrating rational evidence and explanation is useless.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you all look crazy. seriously, every post just makes it worse.


And we are going to keep looking crazy until a real investigation is done. Far too many innocent people have died because of this. Those of us that care about the lives lost ... the crimes committed simply will not stop until those responsible are held accountable.
Nuff said.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

huffy420 said:


> Hahahahah dude u have spent the last 100 pages trying to prove a fuel fire reaches temps to melt steel, then this statement?! Hah just shoot yourself in the foot again why dont ya? So where does the red melted steel come from thats pouring from the tower? And dont say aluminum from the plane cause thats false! One aluminum is not red, two the red flames
> and black smoke obviously scream suffocated fire not some "raging" inferno that you seem to think. It amazes me how you contradict yourself as the agrument progresses.
> 
> No explosions eh? Thats why the word "explosions" was stated more times by eye witnesses then any other word. But what do they know?... They were on at "street level" or inside the fuckin building... Get real! ur watchin a video kn the internet thats takin like 20 or 30 blocks away, but somehow thats more justifiable then physically being present LOL u crack me up



 i didnt even know how to react after the "Gas statement"


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> They pulled building 6.
> 
> You want to tell me the firemen were complicit in killing over 300 of their brethren.
> 
> ...


You act like I said they set the explosives. I just said they were telling people to get back because the towers were coming down.

Ok, screw the towers. What about Bush.

When did he hear about the towers? In the classroom, before he entered the classroom, or in his hotel?

Because he's given three different stories.

These people have most of you so brain washed, they could tell you anything and you'd buy it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> And we are going to keep looking crazy until a real investigation is done. Far too many innocent people have died because of this. Those of us that care about the lives lost ... the crimes committed simply will not stop until those responsible are held accountable.
> Nuff said.



good luck, i got real things to do.  

are "those responsible" reading all your posts here?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You aren't understanding anything I am saying.


No ... you aren't understanding what YOU are saying.



what... huh? said:


> So you think a person survived witnessing an explosion, even dragging people out, in a detonation so immense... it brought down a building from the top down an hour and a half later.
> Perfectly logical, perfectly rational.


Who said they were dragged out during detonation? ... other than you ... 
911 Debunked Mystery Explosions EXPOSED
[youtube]qpwRvo0SmMM[/youtube]
You've been thoroughly debunked ... deal with it.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> You act like I said they set the explosives. I just said they were telling people to get back because the towers were coming down.


Either you believe that they are psychic, or they were aware ahead of time, or that they knew, because of experience, and the situation, that it could very well come down.

If it is the latter, then it has no baring whatsoever on the discussion.

I doubt you believe the NYFD has supernatural powers... so that pretty much just leaves the notion that they knew ahead of time what the plan was.

Feel free to correct me.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 16, 2009)

That's all I really care to see is a real investigation. I almost joined the military after 911 to help get bin-laden. I didn't watch an hour of news before 911. In a way I would love to believe the official story. In a way I would feel safer if it was a false flag attack, cause if it was terrorists then the gov has proved they can't protect against it and can't get the people responsible either.

Give me something to fight for I will.
Give me something to fight against I will.


Kinda like mother teresa saying "I will not attend any more anti-war rallies"
" But I will attend pro-peace ones"

Not her exact words but yeah.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> good luck, i got real things to do.
> are "those responsible" reading all your posts here?


Thanks ... I got things to do too ... like bringing out the truth is a real thing to do for me. Like I said ... the murder of tens of thousands because of 911 may not bother you, but it does me and I intend on speaking out about it as much as possible.
I doubt those responsible are, but their peons ...no doubt. This is a pot site. People that smoke pot and pays attention to what crimes are being committed by high levels of government probably does make them nervous.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Thanks ... I got things to do too ... like bringing out the truth is a real thing to do for me. Like I said ... the murder of tens of thousands because of 911 may not bother you, but it does me and I intend on speaking out about it as much as possible.
> I doubt those responsible are, but their peons ...no doubt. This is a pot site. People that smoke pot and pays attention to what crimes are being committed by high levels of government probably does make them nervous.


maybe you should stand in front of a recruiting office. they are the ones doing all the killing. 

politicians don't kill people, your kids do.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Either you believe that they are psychic, or they were aware ahead of time, or that they knew, because of experience, and the situation, that it could very well come down.
> 
> If it is the latter, then it has no baring whatsoever on the discussion.
> 
> ...


Umm, well a building like that has never collapsed from fire, so obviously they have no experience in that department.

And I doubt they have esp, so yeah, they were told the towers were being brought down, not beforehand though.

By "beforehand" I mean prior to the planes hitting.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

FIRST OFF......... 
"You've been thoroughly debunked ... deal with it." WITH A CAPITOL THOROUGHLY !!

you got um reb . bottem line


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> FIRST OFF.........
> "You've been thoroughly debunked ... deal with it." WITH A CAPITOL THOROUGHLY !!
> 
> you got um reb . bottem line



boy he sure did. changed my whole opinion. i'm pissed now.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> They pulled building 6.


I've heard nothing about building 6. Where did you get that information?



what... huh? said:


> You want to tell me the firemen were complicit in killing over 300 of their brethren.


Who says that? You?



what... huh? said:


> You people are sick.


What's your excuse?



what... huh? said:


> I am officially done.


Honey ... you were done at your first post! 



what... huh? said:


> This is just arguing with a bunch of stop signs.


Not so ... we simply don't buy into the disinformation you are  ing



what... huh? said:


> You are not rational...


Why is that? Because we accept science and facts over government conspiracy theories?



what... huh? said:


> demonstrating rational evidence and explanation is useless.


Not so ... the problem with you is you haven't demonstrated any "rational evidence" to confirm the government conspiracy theory. That's all.
Bu-bye! (happy wave here) 

FDD we need a nice happy wave smiley.


----------



## Johnny Retro (Aug 16, 2009)

I cant even tell whos on whos side..
everyones arugments contradict what theyd been saying before


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

no offense FDD but u got urself in this well before u said we all look crazy. Some of us take this VERY serious, and not because i am scared of the government killin us all or micro-chippin us or no dumb shit like that. WHAT I SAID earlier ... i plainly stated I DONT want my kids thinkin that a bunch of iraqies or afganastan folks killed all those people on 911 PERIOD. (i cant spell either....o'well) 
UNTIL they do a *REAL *investigation then some of us will never be happy (an some of us will keel over still talkin about it...)
by the way i have watched hundreds of video's of people dieing that day and have CRYED many of times over it.
WHEN I CRY SOMETHING IS SERIOUS !

like i said no offence to anyone...
now i am going to the smiley part of RUI to chill.....


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> maybe you should stand in front of a recruiting office. they are the ones doing all the killing.
> politicians don't kill people, your kids do.


Why on earth would I want to stand in front of a recruiting office? I am a vet, but that's besides the point. Our kids have no business in Afghanistan or Iraq. It never ceases to amaze me how many young people they sucker into fighting for corporate interests. That's one the reason they did 911 ...
... and where is that happy wave I asked for? I want a happy wave!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

Johnny Retro said:


> I cant even tell whos on whos side..
> everyones arugments contradict what theyd been saying before


Can you please give an example ... if it is from our side I will clarify.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> Umm, well a building like that has never collapsed from fire, so obviously they have no experience in that department.
> 
> And I doubt they have esp, so yeah, they were told the towers were being brought down, not beforehand though.
> 
> By "beforehand" I mean prior to the planes hitting.



And knowing before hand, they sent hundreds of their brethren up the buildings to die.


So why are you saying that this isn't what you are saying? It is utterly ridiculous... and if you believe it... it says a lot about you.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

When Bush was president, 60% of Democrats believed 9/11 was an inside job. Now that their boy is in there, they deny it.

When Bush was pres. the democrats wanted ALL of our troops to come home, but now they don't care if Obama increases troops in Afghanistan. 

When Bush signed the Patriot act, Democrats were up in arms. Now Obama keeps it in place and expands upon it, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Hypocrites much?


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> And knowing before hand, they sent hundreds of their brethren up the buildings to die.
> 
> 
> So why are you saying that this isn't what you are saying? It is utterly ridiculous... and if you believe it... it says a lot about you.


Hey, did you see the freakin videos where the Firemen said the towers were coming down?
If you didn't, then stfu, because you don't know shit. 

If you did, explain how they knew they were coming down smart guy. 

All you can do is talk shit, but bring nothing to the discussion.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> When Bush was president, 60% of Democrats believed 9/11 was an inside job. Now that their boy is in there, they deny it.
> 
> When Bush was pres. the democrats wanted ALL of our troops to come home, but now they don't care if Obama increases troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> And knowing before hand, they sent hundreds of their brethren up the buildings to die.
> So why are you saying that this isn't what you are saying? It is utterly ridiculous... and if you believe it... it says a lot about you.


Yo Op 420 ... check it out they rely on this.
This one is a number 10 ... number 10
10. *Associate opponent charges with old news*. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
Got their game plan!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> When Bush was president, 60% of Democrats believed 9/11 was an inside job. Now that their boy is in there, they deny it.
> 
> When Bush was pres. the democrats wanted ALL of our troops to come home, but now they don't care if Obama increases troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


The dims and repukes are two sides of the same crooked coin ... the elite in both parties need to be removed from office. But yes ... they are hypocrites ... big time. They just play good cop bad cop with up ... when both are coming from the same end. Obama has proven he is not much different from bush. Both have the same handlers. That's why.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> no offense FDD but u got urself in this well before u said we all look crazy. Some of us take this VERY serious, and not because i am scared of the government killin us all or micro-chippin us or no dumb shit like that. WHAT I SAID earlier ... i plainly stated I DONT want my kids thinkin that a bunch of iraqies or afganastan folks killed all those people on 911 PERIOD. (i cant spell either....o'well)
> UNTIL they do a *REAL *investigation then some of us will never be happy (an some of us will keel over still talkin about it...)
> by the way i have watched hundreds of video's of people dieing that day and have CRYED many of times over it.
> WHEN I CRY SOMETHING IS SERIOUS !
> ...


so who shot kennedy?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

You are talking about 7. I have seen thousands of videos... you will have to be more specific. I have not seen firemen saying WTC 2 was coming down.


Building 7 was bulging between the 13th and 15th floors, indicating it was failing. They said they thought it was coming down because of their experience with collapsing buildings and it had been on fire for 6 hours. 


Damnit... I want to be officially done... but you keep addressing things incorrectly and I feel I have to clarify.

wyte... you haven't addressed anything, much less the gas comment, which I explained. If you are unable to understand, It is because you do not want to. You are like the little kid behind the bully who pokes his head out and says "gittem" because you yourself are weak, at debate in this case.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> so who shot kennedy?


Most likely the elite in government at that time ...the war criminal Johnson probably had a hand in it. ... and the bankers ... Kennedy was planning to put a major crimp in the Federal Reserves power to print money ... so they killed him. But that is another issue.
Any time there is a security failure like that I suspect a cover up.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The dims and repukes are two sides of the same crooked coin ... the elite in both parties need to be removed from office. But yes ... they are hypocrites ... big time. They just play good cop bad cop with up ... when both are coming from the same end. Obama has proven he is not much different from bush. Both have the same handlers. That's why.


Yeah, if Obama wasn't informed of the game plan before, he was definitely told during the Builderberg meeting what his "duties" were.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Most likely the elite in government at that time ...the war criminal Johnson probably had a hand in it. ... and the bankers ... Kennedy was planning to put a major crimp in the Federal Reserves power to print money ... so they killed him. But that is another issue.
> Any time there is a security failure like that I suspect a cover up.


and you want the truth about 911? good luck.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You are talking about 7. I have seen thousands of videos... you will have to be more specific. I have not seen firemen saying WTC 2 was coming down.
> 
> 
> Building 7 was bulging between the 13th and 15th floors, indicating it was failing. They said they thought it was coming down because of their experience with collapsing buildings and it had been on fire for 6 hours.
> ...


K man, sorry for jumping down your throat. I'll try to find the video.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 16, 2009)

"weak, at debate in this case"
Yes unfortunately i am kinda weak on this one ... but you have still yet to produce anything yourself and you been in this thread for a long time ? 
Your theory's have been derailed and destroyed , why do i need to keep going? i am tryin to settle down.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Building 7 was bulging between the 13th and 15th floors, indicating it was failing.


Bullshit ... there wasn't nearly enough damage to cause that building to fall into it's own foot print with no resistance. Blowing it out your ass again.



what... huh? said:


> They said they thought it was coming down because of their experience with collapsing buildings and it had been on fire for 6 hours.


What experience? Seeing two skyscrapers coming down that should not have? Is that what you are talking about?




what... huh? said:


> Damnit... I want to be officially done... but you keep addressing things incorrectly and I feel I have to clarify.


Spew out more disinformation you mean.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> and you want the truth about 911? good luck.


I know ... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on it. Times are different now. We have the internet. Back then we did not. Who know, we may have been able to do something if we have had the internet back then. Besides 911 has done far more damage than Kennedy's murder.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 16, 2009)

OK, here is a first responders account of what happened. 

[youtube]3mNJkNeF5Q8&[/youtube]


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I know ... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on it. Times are different now. We have the internet. Back then we did not. Who know, we may have been able to do something if we have had the internet back then. Besides 911 has done far more damage than Kennedy's murder.


 I had a big piece typed up about this but I was inactive for too long. But it was basically asking what JFK might have been like had we internet, rollitup during the event. And like now 8 years after 911 or 46/7? years after JFK.

I just happened to watch JFKII the other day and the same night history channel had a pretty cool show about it. I'm pretty ignorant to the whole thing(too young? heard about it as a kid but never gave it any thought) but what I like about these shows was they seemed more like an investigation than a theory. Like when did people start questioning that event? and how? thru local bars word of mouth or people in the media? like I said I'm pretty ignorant to that stuff.


----------



## FoxCompany426 (Aug 16, 2009)

I have one question....

If you really do figure out what exactly happened on 9/11, what do you plan on doing?

Can't really justify wasting your life talking about conspiracies on a MARIJUANA CULTIVATING forum without a game plan, eh?

Thanks for the entertainment.


----------



## Johnny Retro (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> so who shot kennedy?


The mafia!!!


----------



## Keenly (Aug 16, 2009)

FoxCompany426 said:


> I have one question....
> 
> If you really do figure out what exactly happened on 9/11, what do you plan on doing?
> 
> ...



or you can maybe not make assumptions ?

the plan is to charge the real criminals responsible for the war crimes they have commited

the plan is also then to repeal the patriot act, remove the word "terrorist" from any form of politics

(this being the case as now pretty much every american can be classified as a terrorist according to the lexicon, DHS, and MIAC report issued by our own government)

also, to get the FUCK out of the middle east


thats the plan smart ass, maybe next time be a little nicer


----------



## Johnny Retro (Aug 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> or you can maybe not make assumptions ?
> 
> the plan is to charge the real criminals responsible for the war crimes they have commited
> 
> ...


I belive his question was what are you going to do about it on a marijuana cultivation site


----------



## FoxCompany426 (Aug 16, 2009)

Johnny Retro said:


> I belive his question was what are you going to do about it on a marijuana cultivation site


Hahahaha! He provided an end result of his plan, but no plan.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> or you can maybe not make assumptions ?
> 
> the plan is to charge the real criminals responsible for the war crimes they have commited
> 
> ...



sounds like a beauty pageant speech. 

except for the insults.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> sounds like a beauty pageant speech.
> 
> except for the insults.


when some one tells me im wasting my life fighting for truth i tend to get a little offended


----------



## Keenly (Aug 16, 2009)

FoxCompany426 said:


> Hahahaha! He provided an end result of his plan, but no plan.


no plan? your LOOKING at it...

this thread.... spreading the truth of the governments lies and cover ups

thats been the plan for a good year or 2 for me now

handing out posters putting up flies etc spreading the word that is the plan


----------



## Keenly (Aug 16, 2009)

Johnny Retro said:


> I belive his question was what are you going to do about it on a marijuana cultivation site


im going to smoke my weed and find as much information on things i deem a threat to freedom as i can

so to recap

im going to

spread the word

smoke the weed

and finally im going to triple post


----------



## FoxCompany426 (Aug 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> and finally im going to triple post


Hahahaha, very nice!

I wasn't intentionally being an ass, just couldn't help it. Conspiracy theories entertain me. No hard feelings?


----------



## Keenly (Aug 16, 2009)

FoxCompany426 said:


> Hahahaha, very nice!
> 
> I wasn't intentionally being an ass, just couldn't help it. Conspiracy theories entertain me. No hard feelings?


i may get offended, but i never hold a grudge or take personal real life offense over some text posted on the internet


so its all good


like i said in a thread i made before, ill still smoke with any one of you regardless of your opinion


----------



## FoxCompany426 (Aug 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i may get offended, but i never hold a grudge or take personal real life offense over some text posted on the internet
> 
> 
> so its all good
> ...


Cool man, I'm the same way! Grudges last less than 24 hrs for me. 

Later.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

FoxCompany426 said:


> Hahahaha! He provided an end result of his plan, but no plan.





Johnny Retro said:


> I belive his question was what are you going to do about it on a marijuana cultivation site


We have a plan ... for those that have a mind to want to do it. I put it up back on page 104 post #1034
And the political forum on this site is no different than any other political site. Spreading the word is what's important. Not where you do it from.



Operation 420 said:


> OK, here is a first responders account of what happened.
> [youtube]3mNJkNeF5Q8&[/youtube]


Cool  Thanks for putting this up. The more witnesses to the crime the better. I discovered they have a link in the video! Nice.



mexiblunt said:


> Like when did people start questioning that event? and how? thru local bars word of mouth or people in the media? like I said I'm pretty ignorant to that stuff.


Excellent question. I was just a kid when it happen and I believed the government. Inside jobs were never thought of then. We only had corporate news, and who knows how long operation mockingbird has been in effect?

Ah ... this just in ...


http://www.911blogger.com/node/20880Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security Kevin Ryan 911 Essay 

Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers? This is the second essay in a series that attempts to answer that question. The first installment began by considering the tenants that occupied the impact zones and the other floors that might have played a useful role in the demolition of the WTC towers. [1] The result was a picture of connections to organizations that had access to explosive materials and to the expertise required to use explosives. Additionally it was seen that, in the years preceding 9/11, the impact zone tenants had all made structural modifications to the areas where the airliners struck the buildings.
The management representatives of these tenant companies were seen to be secretive and powerful. Through these powerful people, the tenants were connected to organizations that benefited greatly from the 9/11 attacks, including the defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, and Science Applications International Corp (SAIC). The tenants also had strong connections to the Bush family and their corporate network, including Dresser Industries (now Halliburton) and UBS, and to Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries, reported to have brokered the insider trading deals. There were also links between these tenant companies and the terrorist-financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).
Remember when I put up the first part way back on  page 80 post #798 Now we have both parts. Answers a lot of questions as to why those buildings were demo.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> We have a plan ... for those that have a mind to want to do it. I put it up back on page 104 post #1034
> And the political forum on this site is no different than any other political site. Spreading the word is what's important. Not where you do it from.
> 
> 
> ...






you can't even research this simple fact. your credibility with me just went in the SHITTER.  

simple goolge search. i could go deeper and probably find an exact date of the first article or whatever. 


There are many conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963 that arose soon after his death and continue to be promoted today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you can't even research this simple fact. your credibility with me just went in the SHITTER.
> 
> simple goolge search. i could go deeper and probably find an exact date of the first article or whatever.
> 
> ...


I was speaking of myself personally ... not generally. As a child ... I had no access to that type of information ... nor would I have been interested. Inside jobs where not part of my consciousness back then. It's like you are looking so hard to nail me on something. Why is that?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I was speaking of myself personally ... not generally. As a child ... I had no access to that type of information ... nor would I have been interested. Inside jobs where not part of my consciousness back then. It's like you are looking so hard to nail me on something. Why is that?


i'm not looking to nail you, i just think you are twisting everything in your favor. it's falling out everywhere. 

you seem to be trying so hard to prove something yourself.


----------



## Parker (Aug 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> when some one tells me im wasting my life fighting for truth i tend to get a little offended


Get with it man. It's about being on the side you think is going to win, it's about being popular.


----------



## FoxCompany426 (Aug 16, 2009)

Parker said:


> Get with it man. It's about being on the side you think is going to win, it's about being popular.


What?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm not looking to nail you, i just think you are twisting everything in your favor. it's falling out everywhere.


Example?



fdd2blk said:


> you seem to be trying so hard to prove something yourself.


It would be impossible for me to prove this by myself. All I am doing is posting information about what happen. I make no bones about my opinion on this matter, but I have worked to back up why I have such an opinion.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 16, 2009)

Parker said:


> Get with it man. It's about being on the side you think is going to win, it's about being popular.


Some are that way ... true ... but I'm hoping their number are small ... hoping.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 16, 2009)

You will enjoy this. Like this jackass you will mistake wind noise for explosions... but it is a vantage point I have not seen before and thought all should see.

[youtube]UkjvKGbaewg[/youtube]

Here you can see the main truss failing (by fire or... explosives) and the internal structure collapsing in on itself... and then the facade basically dropping around it... which is why it looks so "demo". Which, in terms of accuracy, could have been handled with charges just as easily. But you can see how the structure fails internally, and then the shell just drops. Really wish we had some video of the base of that thing.

As for my side of the argument, the internal structure collapsing first shows that something structurally failed horribly... and while it certainly doesnt rule out demo, does show how failure of the three main web trusses which support the entire building could have caused internal collapse. Never seen a building do anything like that before.

I have another video for you that you will like too. I already see what you will see... but what I see is a key structural point in the middle being caused to fail, and the top of a building is used crush the bottom half... and then destroying itself. 

[youtube]syzKBBB_THE[/youtube]


People ask why I show videos that they see as furthering their cause. Because I see how they will see this, does not mean that they do, but I am not afraid of truth.

Now that is a weird demo. I don't know how they did that... and wish I spoke french... but I am looking into it. 

Lastly... this is a typical demo of a WIDE building... the WTC was bigger than these... note the number of concussive explosions. Also note that it goes from the bottom down, not the top.

[youtube]j6tGgg4aiG4&NR[/youtube]

Enjoy.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> or you can maybe not make assumptions ?
> 
> the plan is to charge the real criminals responsible for the war crimes they have commited
> 
> ...


Holey smokes.......  Now you can see why you are called the "fringe element".


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 16, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Example?



you'd pick it apart word for word and deny it. i have better things to do.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 16, 2009)

I miss Jimmy Hoffa. He'd know what to do about this.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Holey smokes.......  Now you can see why you are called the "fringe element".


oh so you support the patriot act?

you support the pillaging of those poor impoverished people?

sweet, ill count on you to vote for more freedom restricting and constitution violating legislation


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

Keenly said:


> oh so you support the patriot act?
> 
> you support the pillaging of those poor impoverished people?
> 
> sweet, ill count on you to vote for more freedom restricting and constitution violating legislation



I support any program which keeps Americans safe. If you are so concerned about the Constitution, you have voted in the wrong President. 

Can you say naive?


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 17, 2009)

FoxCompany426 said:


> I have one question....
> 
> If you really do figure out what exactly happened on 9/11, what do you plan on doing?
> 
> ...



well when that day comes you will see the plan....  . i am glad u find this entertaining. go back to the other part of RUI.
it might be funny to you but some of us work hard on this shit and some of us will go to the grave still tryin.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 17, 2009)

oh and the jfk thing..... i am only 30 somthing so i have no idea. On 911 i was alot older and NOT dumb enough to believe them buildings fell perfect like that. THEN a couple years later i got the internet and been reading "official and unofficial reports" ever since.....So i have been working on this shit for at least 7 years now.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I support any program which keeps Americans safe. If you are so concerned about the Constitution, you have voted in the wrong President.
> 
> Can you say naive?


Statistically you are much more likely to be struck by lightning than harmed by a real life terrorist. The Dept of Homeland Security isn't keeping anyone safe.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You will enjoy this. Like this jackass you will mistake wind noise for explosions... but it is a vantage point I have not seen before and thought all should see.


Number 16 ... number 16
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.



what... huh? said:


> Here you can see the main truss failing (by fire or... explosives) and the internal structure collapsing in on itself... and then the facade basically dropping around it... which is why it looks so "demo".


No ... the reason it "looks so demo" is because it is. There are plenty of witnesses that stated they heard explosions ... plus the fact that the building fell with no resistance what so ever. What happen to the undamaged steel?
Sorry, but the video really does support our claims.



what... huh? said:


> Which, in terms of accuracy, could have been handled with charges just as easily. But you can see how the structure fails internally, and then the shell just drops. Really wish we had some video of the base of that thing.


Still doesn't explain what happen to the undamaged steel which was 80%. No resistance ... demo ... resistance ... other causes. 



what... huh? said:


> As for my side of the argument, the internal structure collapsing first shows that something structurally failed horribly...


And why was that? It couldn't have been because of the fire, because it wasn't hot enough nor was the damage great enough to bring the whole building down at free fall speed into it's own foot print. So what cause all that structural steel to suddenly fail at the exact same time?



what... huh? said:


> and while it certainly doesnt rule out demo,


Thank you ... 



what... huh? said:


> does show how failure of the three main web trusses which support the entire building could have caused internal collapse.


Ah no sorry ... a building is not going to collapse at free fall speed because three main trusses give way. Nope ... doesn't happen.



what... huh? said:


> Never seen a building do anything like that before.


Well golly gee ... I wonder why?



what... huh? said:


> I have another video for you that you will like too. I already see what you will see... but what I see is a key structural point in the middle being caused to fail, and the top of a building is used crush the bottom half... and then destroying itself.


Ah no ... stuff like that just doesn't happen with these buildings ... it goes against what they were design to do.



what... huh? said:


> People ask why I show videos that they see as furthering their cause. Because I see how they will see this, does not mean that they do, but I am not afraid of truth.


Well when you finally accept the truth you won't be as traumatized as the others will you?



what... huh? said:


> Now that is a weird demo. I don't know how they did that... and wish I spoke french... but I am looking into it.
> 
> Lastly... this is a typical demo of a WIDE building... the WTC was bigger than these... note the number of concussive explosions. Also note that it goes from the bottom down, not the top.


Yeah ... just like the number of explosions that were in the video I posted. Which proves those buildings were demo.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Statistically you are much more likely to be struck by lightning than harmed by a real life terrorist. The Dept of Homeland Security isn't keeping anyone safe.


Yeah ... he's one of those suckers that are born every minute I hear tell about. The elite loves dummies like him. So easy to fool. The elite are far more of a threat that any terrorist could ever hope to be. I keep my eye on them rather than a make believe terrorist they have made up to scare the weak minded.
(happy wave here)


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 17, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you'd pick it apart word for word and deny it. i have better things to do.


So in other words you can't show me an example of where I have picked apart things word for word and then deny it because you have better things to do right? Okay ...what ever.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 17, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> So in other words you can't show me an example of where I have picked apart things word for word and then deny it because you have better things to do right? Okay ...what ever.



there is no "other words". i said what i said.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

ANYONE can run around copy/pasting ideas.....that doesn't make them correct. I'll take quality of info over quantity of info any day. GR goes for quantity....no matter how crazy it sounds.

Meanwhile living in his parents basement...he sends up for some more cheese fries....


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 17, 2009)

Allah Akbar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

Ba-shing Bush Ba-sher


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Ba-shing Bush Ba-sher


Ze Bush, He waz Goot. I like ze Bush. History vill show heem in ze pozitive light. Ja. 

Farfignutten.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> ANYONE can run around copy/pasting ideas.....that doesn't make them correct. I'll take quality of info over quantity of info any day. GR goes for quantity....no matter how crazy it sounds.
> 
> Meanwhile living in his parents basement...he sends up for some more cheese fries....


just look at your profile and look at ours and u tell me whos livin in mommy's basement ??

u2 warlord look at YOUR activity


----------



## Parker (Aug 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Statistically you are much more likely to be struck by lightning than harmed by a real life terrorist. The Dept of Homeland Security isn't keeping anyone safe.


More money needs to be pumped into the Lightning Prevention Bureau. I've said that all along.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 17, 2009)

FlashBack ... let's not forget this video folks that *scientifically proves that the fire was not hot enough *to do the damage they claim. I posted this way back on page 76 post 753, but I think it needs to be re-posted.

9/11 FLIR Infrared Camera proves NIST and 9/11 Commission Lies
[youtube]yllhB2HYIP0&feature=related[/youtube]
This completely blows the disinformationalist/deniers fantasy that fire and jet fuel brought down those towers.
They have no explanation as to how those towers could come down when it has been scientifically proven the fires weren't nearly hot enough. In fact they cooled down 15 minutes after impact. Why was that?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 17, 2009)




----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> ANYONE can run around copy/pasting ideas.....that doesn't make them correct.


You mean what you tried to do but failed miserably?
Number 23 ... number 23 ...
23.* Create bigger distractions*. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.



CrackerJax said:


> I'll take quality of info over quantity of info any day. GR goes for quantity....no matter how crazy it sounds.


Number 3 ... number 3 ...
3.* Create rumor mongers*. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.



CrackerJax said:


> Meanwhile living in his parents basement...he sends up for some more cheese fries....


Number 18 ... number 18 ... 
18. *Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents*. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. 
Number 1 ... number 1 
1. *Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil*. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Number 17 ... number 17 ...
17. *Change the subject*. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic



The Warlord said:


> Allah Akbar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Number 5 ... number 5
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
Number 6 ... number 6
6. *Hit and Run*. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. 



CrackerJax said:


> Ba-shing Bush Ba-sher


*Traits of the Disinformationalist*
1) *Avoidance*. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

5)* Anti-conspiratorial*. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
Fits like a glove


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 17, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> just look at your profile and look at ours and u tell me whos livin in mommy's basement ??
> 
> u2 warlord look at YOUR activity


I only post on here while i am at work. This is my homepage. I disconected my DSL at home, Ja.

My avataR CAN BEAT UP YOUR AVATAR!


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 17, 2009)

i have tiny penis.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 17, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i have tiny penis.


Wow, a troll/mod. how do you pull that one off?

Ja, IT esssss gooten, Fraulien.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 17, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> I only post on here while i am at work. This is my homepage. I disconected my DSL at home, Ja.
> 
> My avataR CAN BEAT UP YOUR AVATAR!



your WAAAY outta line on that one  u would beat up Ricky ?  hes the coolest dude there is besides bubbz..... geeez i cant believe u took a shot at ricky just not cool man... u aint never seen him fight then ? he does alright against randy.....


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 17, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> Wow, a troll/mod. how do you pull that one off?
> 
> Ja, IT esssss gooten, Fraulien.


you forgot "nazi".


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 17, 2009)

Smile bro. I'm just yankin your chain. I rarely see eye to eye with you but your a good mod. As a troll your half assin it at best.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

FDD is the Troll he's always wanted to be.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 17, 2009)

you american

have such big penis


we japanese have tiny penis

how can we hope to accomplish anything with tiny penis




south park is fucking hilarious


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 17, 2009)

Keenly said:


> you american
> 
> have such big penis
> 
> ...


that episode was some of their best work.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 17, 2009)

[youtube]VJ_E7Vce8vU[/youtube]


----------



## Keenly (Aug 17, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> [youtube]VJ_E7Vce8vU[/youtube]



Once again, here to capitalize on peoples emotions lol


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

Sank you fo visit wif your gargantuan American penis.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 17, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


>


Ill see your Troll and raise you a


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> You will enjoy this. Like this jackass you will mistake wind noise for explosions... but it is a vantage point I have not seen before and thought all should see.
> 
> [youtube]UkjvKGbaewg[/youtube]


Yeah that could be a compressed soundtrack and it makes the wind noises sound like explosions. Camcorders are notorious for that, BUT heres the thing, wind noises never abate totally, the wind does not go from dead calm to 10 mph gust and then back to dead calm in 2 second span. Wind tends to build and die off gradually, you hear this all the time when your local news channel has there crack investigative team outside on a windy day interviewing the little girl with a lemonade stand. Also isn't it funny how the sounds are all timed exactly as you see the windows start to burst, first you hear the sound, but its normal for you tube to have the audio not synch right. But just time the sounds and the time is the same as the video showing thwe windows breaking on the left, then the right. Explosions and NOT wind if you ask me.


Besides, the roof gave out first, and the fires were no where near the roof. Common sense.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

There is no audio after the wind picks up the first time.

If you crank it up there are people talking in the background... sounds like over a radio, or it could be heavy compression on a shitty cam mic enclosed in something. It cuts completely, and then when the wind cuts in again you hear them again. No idea if it was deliberate or not. It is the only copy I can find.


There is also a huge collapse of that GINORMOUS AC unit or whatever it is at that time. I expect it would make noise as it collapses through x number of floors while the structure collapsed internally. Not saying that is the answer... but the audio is cut, which is a shame.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> I have another video for you that you will like too. I already see what you will see... but what I see is a key structural point in the middle being caused to fail, and the top of a building is used crush the bottom half... and then destroying itself.
> 
> [youtube]syzKBBB_THE[/youtube]
> 
> ...



Ok good video, but we are only left to assume the top portion and bottom portions were destroyed, we don't actually get to see the whole mess afterwards when there are no dust clouds. And who is to say that they didn't use explosives to destroy those portions, but timed them differently? Also, are those buildings steel framed and steel cored buildings? or are they just Steel reinforced? Concrete has terrible tension properties and will fail easily if required to hold unsupported weight up.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

Because you can hear the audio.

Don't know the composition yet, EVERYTHING on this thing is in French. I took a lot of Latin, but it doesn't make me a good reader of French... the premise is what I was going for anyway. If you want to start comparing the two beyond the type of collapse, I will argue that this building is not an acre in diameter, with 20 acres of floors above it. Massive forces. Massive weight. Chains and weakest links.


Also... the second shot... watch the corner closest to the camera all the way down... and when you cannot see it anymore hit pause, and look at the crane on the ground. You can see it ALMOST all the way to the ground before the dust cloud... and if you listen to the audio you can hear it continue to crush after the dust... and then stop.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 17, 2009)

Well I would say without a doubt you have certainly proved that a building can at the very least be made to look like it crushes itself with nary an explosion made. Bravo!


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

That video in particular is a real double edged sword... you challenged me to find a collapse like WTC 1/2... and I did... but it was controlled demo, and I don't know the parameters...


The other notable thing... is it is silent demo, which I asked you to provide... so... accuracy and all.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

Jynx


Of course the logical argument to this as evidence for your side is the impossible task of flying the planes into the exact right place where demo is already planted.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 17, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Jynx
> 
> 
> Of course the logical argument to this as evidence for your side is the impossible task of flying the planes into the exact right place where demo is already planted.



Its also quite easy with a Digital Relay board to control and change your demo sequence on the fly. Im not saying thats what happened, I have no evidence at all, just saying it could have been done.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Yeah that could be a compressed soundtrack and it makes the wind noises sound like explosions. Camcorders are notorious for that, BUT heres the thing, wind noises never abate totally, the wind does not go from dead calm to 10 mph gust and then back to dead calm in 2 second span. Wind tends to build and die off gradually, you hear this all the time when your local news channel has there crack investigative team outside on a windy day interviewing the little girl with a lemonade stand. Also isn't it funny how the sounds are all timed exactly as you see the windows start to burst, first you hear the sound, but its normal for you tube to have the audio not synch right. But just time the sounds and the time is the same as the video showing thwe windows breaking on the left, then the right. Explosions and NOT wind if you ask me.
> 
> 
> Besides, the roof gave out first, and the fires were no where near the roof. Common sense.



heat rises?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Its also quite easy with a Digital Relay board to control and change your demo sequence on the fly. Im not saying thats what happened, I have no evidence at all, just saying it could have been done.


fuckin' men in black shit now.  

i'm not singling you out, it's the only two points i'm able to understand at the moment. i just skimmed the last few posts. that's all. i take the easy ones. i did write out my replies though. 


i'd almost believe some of these theories, then they fly off to jupiter.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

So instead of a plane, slicing one side of the structural supports, the force of the explosion, and a tremendous and instant fire which burned for at minimum 50 minutes weakening the steel enough to bring it down on top of the ONE floor above and start a chain reaction... 


You go with they rigged the building with hundreds of thousands of tons of thermite, unnoticed, with RC detonators presumably on a huge battery backup on every floor... unnoticed. With a huge command module somewhere... which doesn't have to be close, it just means the system remote which IS close will not be damaged by the goings on. 


If I were on your side, I would be looking for a RF spectral analysis on 9/11. Phone companies, internet companies, all kinds of companies are doing constant analysis. I would isolate frequencies looking for all data within 3 seconds of the collapse, and analyze it all by isolation. Silent before that signal, off FCC frequency to avoid someones iphone kicking it off. Should be pretty quick and easy to find anything in radio.

Of course they could have run the whole thing on some sort of ethernet so long as we are fantasizing about time and access. Still, that is where I would look. Something is going to be radio somewhere.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 17, 2009)

Okay, I've seen the footage and I only have one more question.


Where is the grassy knoll?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 17, 2009)

Roof giving out first...


The if the first of the three trusses to collapse was #3, the one under that... then it would.







Flaming debris? or no damage? Remember how long the rubble burned for... that debris was very hot.







I know... we have seen it before... but I like context.







Weenie roast and chunks of building. Burned for how many hours across how many floors?













Side of the building. We cant see the front because of all the smoke, and limited access from that vantage point as the towers had collapsed, and this ones area was cleared because they thought it might come down. I expect the incredibly huge chunks of concrete, that big assed antenna, and chunks of steel might have done a little more damage than you give it credit for. They were really big buildings. If you have never seen them it is really hard to conceptualize. 

We also don't have time frames on any of these photos because nobody would think that 8 years later we would be debating whether or not it was hurt enough to fall down. So after the area was cleared, we don't know how long people were focused on it, taking pictures from the side of the building not on fire... except to show some fires which had spread to the backside. The fire was bad enough that the firemen didn't think they could contain it.


BTW... those windows were mirrored. It would be damned near impossible to see flames through them in broad daylight. You show those pictures from the undamaged side with fires across multiple floors... but look at them, they are the only broken windows on the backside. The front HALF of the building was engulfed in flame and significantly damaged.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 18, 2009)

I can still remember the awful popping sounds of bodies hitting the pavement as the TV kept taping.

GR and his ilk disgust me to the core. They are the worst sort of citizen there is. I'm done with this thread. 

One of the lowest threads on the RIU forum.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 18, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I can still remember the awful popping sounds of bodies hitting the pavement as the TV kept taping.
> 
> GR and his ilk disgust me to the core. They are the worst sort of citizen there is. I'm done with this thread.
> 
> One of the lowest threads on the RIU forum.


Have a nice day!


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 18, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> heat rises?



Yep it rose 30 floors and melted the roof, while all the 30 floors stayed intact. You know how heat skips a few hundred feet while its rising? Yeah thats what happened.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 18, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Yep it rose 30 floors and melted the roof, while all the 30 floors stayed intact. You know how heat skips a few hundred feet while its rising? Yeah thats what happened.


yea heat always skips a few hundred feet ... thats just what it does when it is rising


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 18, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> S
> You go with they rigged the building with hundreds of thousands of tons of thermite, unnoticed, with RC detonators presumably on a huge battery backup on every floor... unnoticed. With a huge command module somewhere... which doesn't have to be close, it just means the system remote which IS close will not be damaged by the goings on.



I don't think ANY demo company uses HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TONS of explosives to take a building down, your being ridiculous now c'mon lets try to live in a somewhat realistic world here. No one, not even the most ardent believer will accept that more than 100 million pounds of explosives were used. If you used that much it would have taken out and leveled 5 -10 city blocks. Your saying the equivalent of a 200 kiloton nuclear weapon hit each building. Not even debateable its so far out there.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm sorry... I meant hundreds of tons. Didn't mean to grossly overstate your position.

I am also not saying "heat rises". I said that truss under it failed.


North side






South side






Then

[youtube]UkjvKGbaewg[/youtube]



As to FLIR...

http://www.prtech-thermalimaging.com/products/infrared_in_action/fact_fiction.htm
https://www.rollitup.org/legal-edge/215663-beat-thermal-imaging.html
https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/217425-how-police-ir-helicopter-functions.html


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 18, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Yep it rose 30 floors and melted the roof, while all the 30 floors stayed intact. You know how heat skips a few hundred feet while its rising? Yeah thats what happened.


ever hear of elevator shafts? like a big CHIMNEY with a cap on top. think about it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 18, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> yea heat always skips a few hundred feet ... thats just what it does when it is rising


especially when it's flying up a chimney. 

so now heat doesn't rise?


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 18, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> ever hear of elevator shafts? like a big CHIMNEY with a cap on top. think about it.


I applaud you, but why are you getting sucked into this? Crackerjax was right; the lowest thread on RIU. Why some dopers get so delusional I will never know.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 18, 2009)

shnkrmn said:


> I applaud you, but why are you getting sucked into this? Crackerjax was right; the lowest thread on RIU. Why some dopers get so delusional I will never know.


for some reason i feel if i point out how STUPID they are they might just STFU. otherwise i have to close this thread and then deal with all the backlash. at this point closing it would be a whole lot easier.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 18, 2009)

NoDrama is not delusional. It is unfair to lump people who disagree with people motivated to disagree.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 18, 2009)

once you all said heat doesn't rise i became very concerned. apparently cRazY is in these days.


carry-on.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 18, 2009)

I wouldn't have expected it to fall that way either. 


So... if GR is a chick... I have so dated her... I think a lot of us have... you are just happy to escape with your dog... and a restraining order.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 18, 2009)

when the next staged terror event takes place, which according to historical trends should be relatively soon

were going to have a thread on that as well, with people eating the lies right out of the corporate medias hands yet again


im not sure if this has been said yet but

why is 9/11 not on the FBI's most wanted list of Osama's crimes


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 18, 2009)

Ask them.

If it is all planned by them... why wouldn't they? They forget?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 18, 2009)

Bin Laden is NOT on the FBI top ten most wanted list for the 911 attacks, he is on the list for the 1998 embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole, but not for 9-11. I wonder why? Didn't he supposedly put out a video claiming responsibility?


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 19, 2009)

Thank you FDD i really think this is important. i'll keep myself calm (happy wave)


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 19, 2009)

If they invented the situation, and the evidence against him... why wouldn't they? Obviously there is another reason.

(My theory makes more sense as to that)


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)




----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


>


 

I already touched on this in my alien attack theory. Nice pic though. Thats exactly what i said happened like 9 pages ago.!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

Thank you for opening this very important thread.
[FONT=&quot]


what... huh? said:


> So instead of a plane, slicing one side of the structural supports, the force of the explosion, [/FONT]





what... huh? said:


> [FONT=&quot]and a tremendous and instant fire which burned for at minimum 50 minutes weakening the steel enough to bring it down on top of the ONE floor above and start a chain reaction...



Total bullshit ... it has already been proven scientifically that those fires were no were near hot enough to bring those building down. You refuse to address the issue of the fires cooling down 15 minutes after impact. So your "chain reaction" bullshit don't wash, and was debunked long ago.



what... huh? said:


> You go with they rigged the building with hundreds of thousands of tons of thermite, unnoticed, with RC detonators presumably on a huge battery backup on every floor... unnoticed.


It's pretty obvious it went unnoticed.



what... huh? said:


> Roof giving out first...


It only looks like the roof gave out first. This image shows an explosion going off at the base ...






[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I don't have a clue why the image won't show. 



what... huh? said:


> The if the first of the three trusses to collapse was #3, the one under that... then it would.


Ah ... no ... it wouldn't and it didn't ... not without some serious help.



what... huh? said:


> Flaming debris? or no damage? Remember how long the rubble burned for... that debris was very hot.


Oh yeah we remember ... the two towers burned less than 2 hours and the fire NEVER got hot enough to do the damage they claim. That has been proven without a doubt. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What happen to the undamaged steel? You continue to disregard cold hard facts. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]



what... huh? said:


> Weenie roast and chunks of building. Burned for how many hours across how many floors?


Less than 2 hours ... and not nearly as many floors needed to burn in order to bring the building down, nor nearly enough time to burn. There was way too much steel that was not damage. Yet when the building fell there was no resistance ... the disinformationalist/deniers can't get around that fact so they ignore it.
 


what... huh? said:


> Side of the building. We cant see the front because of all the smoke, and limited access from that vantage point as the towers had collapsed, and this ones area was cleared because they thought it might come down. I expect the incredibly huge chunks of concrete, that big assed antenna, and chunks of steel might have done a little more damage than you give it credit for. They were really big buildings. If you have never seen them it is really hard to conceptualize.


the only thing hard to conceptualize is that fire brought those building down.



what... huh? said:


> We also don't have time frames on any of these photos because nobody would think that 8 years later we would be debating whether or not it was hurt enough to fall down.


There is nothing to debate. Those buildings were demo.



what... huh? said:


> So after the area was cleared, we don't know how long people were focused on it, taking pictures from the side of the building not on fire... except to show some fires which had spread to the backside. The fire was [/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]bad enough that the firemen didn't think they could contain it.


Where did you get that from?



what... huh? said:


> BTW... those windows were mirrored. It would be damned near impossible to see flames through them in broad daylight. You show those pictures from the undamaged side with fires across multiple floors... but look at them, they are the only broken windows on the backside. The front HALF of the building was engulfed in flame and significantly damaged.


I have seen not one picture showing the front half of the building engulfed in flames ... that's a fantasy on your part.



CrackerJax said:


> Okay, I've seen the footage and I only have one more question.
> Where is the grassy knoll?


Number 18 .... number 18
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad


CrackerJax said:


> I can still remember the awful popping sounds of bodies hitting the pavement as the TV kept taping. GR and his ilk disgust me to the core.


Well I can understand why since I continue to make you look like the dumbass you are. I can completely understand why a disinformationalist like you would be disgusted since no one with sense will buy your bullshit.


CrackerJax said:


> They are the worst sort of citizen there is. I'm done with this thread. One of the lowest threads on the RIU forum.


Number 2 ... number 2 ...
2. Become incredulous and indignant
Bu-bye! ... bu-bye! (happy wave here) [/FONT]



what... huh? said:


> I'm sorry... I meant hundreds of tons. Didn't mean to grossly overstate your position.
> 
> I am also not saying "heat rises". I said that truss under it failed.


Complete and total bullshit. See all that steel? What happen to it? Where was the resistance it should have caused/
Not to mention he is totally disregarding this report, that was posted way back on page 36
[youtube]Vz43hcKYBm4[/youtube]
 



what... huh? said:


> As to FLIR...
> 
> http://www.prtech-thermalimaging.com/products/infrared_in_action/fact_fiction.htm
> https://www.rollitup.org/legal-edge/215663-beat-thermal-imaging.html
> https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/217425-how-police-ir-helicopter-functions.html


This link proves nothing ... it certainly doesn't refused the infra red photos that were taken at the scene.



what... huh? said:


> I guarantee you I did more "work" than anyone in that thread.
> GR just watches conspiracy youtubes all day and quotes other peoples work. You want to see GR's work?


This is the biggest bullshit statement you have made to date. Oh right ... I'm just suppose to make shit up of my own. Oh that's right ... that's what you do.
I provide the facts, and give the source. Something you seem to have a problem with.




what... huh? said:


> So... if GR is a chick... I have so dated her... I think a lot of us have... you are just happy to escape with your dog... and a restraining order.


You conceded ass ... you would never even get as far as a date. What's makes you think I would date a dummy like you? I wouldn't give you a first look.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> I already touched on this in my alien attack theory. Nice pic though. Thats exactly what i said happened like 9 pages ago.!


yeah, i know.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

it would have NEVER gone unnoticed. i said this on page 3. 

there is NOWHERE to hide anything in those buildings. the support columns are next to Judy's desk. she's on the phone though, she won't notice a thing. 

don't you think after there was already an attempt to blow up buildings that people would be aware of any unusual explosives strapped to the walls?


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

What you guys who believe this fail to grasp is that weather the buildings came down or not just the fact that the jets WHERE flown into the buildigs was enough, if this were some plot to "go to war". Bombs weren't really needed. Just hitting the buildings would be enough to justify their reasoning for war. So why go to the extra effort?

It's all a fantasy. Now come out of your secret lair/basement and get on with your life. It was the muslims. Or maybe it was the deathstar and I was right all along! BWWWWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> What you guys who believe this fail to grasp is that weather the buildings came down or not just the fact that the jets WHERE flown into the buildigs was enough, if this were some plot to "go to war". Bombs weren't really needed. Just hitting the buildings would be enough to justify their reasoning for war. So why go to the extra effort?
> 
> It's all a fantasy. Now come out of your secret lair/basement and get on with your life. It was the muslims. Or maybe it was the deathstar and I was right all along! BWWWWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


it was tyler. 


[youtube]etvjQSDMAEE[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

what if ............................................ it didn't work? 



[youtube]YevmEDd80So[/youtube]


looking at the building, how it's cut out, the pile of bricks strategically placed in front of it, how it rolls perfectly over it all. ... i think this was intentionally done.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

Yes that would have been embarassing.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> what if ............................................ it didn't work?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most likely just a big practical joke.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Most likely just a big practical joke.


there is no way that was a FAIL. it was way to deliberate. the cut out on the building is pretty obvious. and it rolled over that pile of bricks way too easy. demo guys are pretty good at what they do. they most likely wanted it out of the way. now they can demo it on another lot while they rebuild that one. 




it takes a LOT of explosives to destroy a building. someone would have seen the little blinking red lights.


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 19, 2009)

I'm astonished the building maintained integrity throughout the roll and even after. You would think once it had turned even 45 degrees from vertical that it would disintegrate. I'm thinking too, that it's not a fail; no demo could turn out quite that badly. Now that I've said that, I await proof of my ignorance!



fdd2blk said:


> there is no way that was a FAIL. it was way to deliberate. the cut out on the building is pretty obvious. and it rolled over that pile of bricks way too easy. demo guys are pretty good at what they do. they most likely wanted it out of the way. now they can demo it on another lot while they rebuild that one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> it would have NEVER gone unnoticed. i said this on page 3.


And I posted back on page 80 post 798 and page 129 post 1290 Kevin Ryan essay on how and why those building were demo ... they could have easily put the explosive in under the guise of "construction work" it can be place behind paneling were no one could see it.
In the first part ...

Bremer was on the international advisory board for the Japanese mining and machinery company, Komatsu. At the time, Komatsu had been involved in a joint venture agreement with Dresser Industries, the oil-services/intelligence front in which Prescott Bush Sr. and George H. W. Bush got their start with Neil Mallon. The Komatsu-Dresser mining division operated from 1988 to 1997.*In July 1996, it patented a thermite demolition device that could demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, *while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.[25] *Residues of thermite, the highly energetic chemical mixture, have been confirmed in samples of the WTC dust, and the use of thermite at the WTC was also revealed by environmental data.*[1, 2, 3, 4, 26] *Dresser Industries merged with Dick Cheneys Halliburton in 1998.
*in the second part ... 
Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers? This is the second essay in a series that attempts to answer that question. The first installment began by considering the tenants that occupied the impact zones and the other floors that might have played a useful role in the demolition of the WTC towers. [1] The result was a picture of connections to organizations that had access to explosive materials and to the expertise required to use explosives. Additionally it was seen that, in the years preceding 9/11, the impact zone tenants had all made structural modifications to the areas where the airliners struck the buildings.
The management representatives of these tenant companies were seen to be secretive and powerful. Through these powerful people, the tenants were connected to organizations that benefited greatly from the 9/11 attacks, including the defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, and Science Applications International Corp (SAIC). The tenants also had strong connections to the Bush family and their corporate network, including Dresser Industries (now Halliburton) and UBS, and to Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries, reported to have brokered the insider trading deals. There were also links between these tenant companies and the terrorist-financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).
How do you explain this?



fdd2blk said:


> there is NOWHERE to hide anything in those buildings.


sure there is ... there would be nothing to stop them from tearing out a wall or panel put in the charges and replace everything. It would be no problem what so ever to do that.



fdd2blk said:


> the support columns are next to Judy's desk. she's on the phone though, she won't notice a thing.


Not if they are behind the panel in the ceiling or behind a wall how could she?



fdd2blk said:


> don't you think after there was already an attempt to blow up buildings that people would be aware of any unusual explosives strapped to the walls?


How they going to see explosives if they are behind the walls? 



The Warlord said:


> What you guys who believe this fail to grasp is that weather the buildings came down or not just the fact that the jets WHERE flown into the buildigs was enough, if this were some plot to "go to war". Bombs weren't really needed. Just hitting the buildings would be enough to justify their reasoning for war. So why go to the extra effort?


You really need to stop posting uneducated opinions ... it only makes you look  ... see above bright boy.



The Warlord said:


> It's all a fantasy.


Only to disinformationalist/deniers like yourself.



The Warlord said:


> Now come out of your secret lair/basement and get on with your life.


You first ... 



The Warlord said:


> It was the muslims.


You nor the government have no proof of that. You are merely parroting what you were told by the war criminals. 



The Warlord said:


> Or maybe it was the deathstar and I was right all along! BWWWWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


or ... maybe you are just too  to see what is going on ... it's obvious you have no education in this area ... you simply  and expect us to take you seriously ... we don't.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

Dude, your too funny.

So the bombs werent nessecary, they just planted them for funnsies, huh?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

NO WAY there was construction on multiple floors. i'm simply *not buying it*. like i said "I have been inside the inner workings of large buildings". there is really NOWHERE to hide. you'd be lucky to have 2 vacant floors in a row. behind what paneling? the telephone closet maybe?

if you worked there, would you have noticed? you have to insult the intelligence of EVERYONE in those buildings to believe any of this crap.

i'm starting to remember why i closed this thread.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

Lol, i'm a DISINFOMATIONALIST! Nice use of the english language!


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> Lol, i'm a DISINFOMATIONALIST! Nice use of the english language!



that's a really bIG word.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

we used to stand on the window ledges in these corner offices and look down onto the street. you could see the sidewalk directly below you. it took A LOT to actually lean against the glass.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> Dude, your too funny.


and girly ... you are still too 



The Warlord said:


> So the bombs werent nessecary, they just planted them for funnsies, huh?


No ... that just another one of your uneducated opinions ... you have a lot of those don't you.



fdd2blk said:


> NO WAY there was construction on multiple floors. i'm simply *not buying it*.


You don't have to buy it ...it's free. Ryan's essay presents evidence that there was.




fdd2blk said:


> like i said "I have been inside the inner workings of large buildings". there is really NOWHERE to hide. you'd be lucky to have 2 vacant floors in a row. behind what paneling? the telephone closet maybe?


And I have worked construction for 20 years and have worked on a high rise ... and there are plenty of places they can hide the stuff. I told you the paneling on the ceiling in the last post.



fdd2blk said:


> if you worked there, would you have noticed? you have to insult the intelligence of EVERYONE in those buildings to believe any of this crap.
> i'm starting to remember why i closed this thread.


If I'd worked there all I would have seen is some construction workers doing some kind of construction work ... and since that particular building has so called security why would I question or wonder what they are doing. So only in your mind would it insult peoples intelligence ... and you closed the thread because you couldn't win the argument. Of course you would never admit that.



The Warlord said:


> Lol, i'm a DISINFOMATIONALIST! Nice use of the english language!


Nice use of the disinformationalist game plan too. You got nothing, you never will have anything. You are incapable of educating yourself.
(happy wave here)


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

I try to fight schizophrenia wherever i find it, bro. go take your pill. (happy wave here)


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> I try to fight schizophrenia wherever i find it, bro. go take your pill. (happy wave here)


You first ... lady ... and you still got nothing ... why am I not surprised?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

Folks for some reason the video of the infra-red photos I re posted in post 1317 was taken down for some reason ... here is the same video ... that has not been taken down.
FLIR Infrared Camera proves NIST and 9/11 Commission Lies 
[youtube]mkN4WKHWYBM[/youtube]

Inside job


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

i closed the thread because people were suggesting i do so. they found it offensive. i have nothing "to win". when too many people complain, i close threads. 
i have never lied here. i have never hidden behind any excuse. if i'm wrong or have an issue i openly admit it. i don't close threads out of spite. i wouldn't have this job if i did.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

fuck ryan's essay. i can think for myself. unlike, PAGE 1, PAGE 1!!!!!!!!!! 

and just to clarify; i don't really feel i'm "arguing". i feel i'm simply pointing out some of the points made that are complete hogwash. i haven't really stated my political views more just COMMON SENSE stuff. i'm sure i could google and youtube just as many counterpoints.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 19, 2009)

well fdd i am very glad you deided to unclose it



to change, erase, or destroy something simply because a group of people "get offended" would undermine the very fabric of our free speech society

while at the same time i recognize that this is a private server with rights to do as it pleases, this is a politics section

people are always going to disagree, but when it comes down to it...asking something to be removed simply because you dont like it is a pretty messed up thing to do

if you are offended at the notion that 9/11 was an inside job

do not open a thread that says 911...(inside job(


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

Even folks in NZ are questioning 911 ... check it ...
Does NZ PM John Key agree explosives were used on 9/11?
Listen to all the witnesses that reported hearing explosions.

Barney Frank continues to avoid we are change about the thermite paper ...
Congressman Barney Frank Dismisses Scientific Report About Explosive Residue in 9/11 Dust
[youtube]yIztVx0Ir6o&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

911 op-ed
http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2009/08/dark-implications-of-nanothermate-in.htmlThe Dark Implications of Nanothermate in WTC Dust - Unlikely Heroes Explain
The dark implications of the active thermitic material discovered the all WTC dust samples are that there was indeed a conspiracy - a cabal of murderous conniving manipulators who thought they could murder 3,000 people on 911 then let all the police, firemen and other first responders die from the toxic remains of the pyroclastic cloud.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

stop with the whole "free speech" nonsense. if the thread is offensive it gets closed.

GR is trolling. plain and simple. 

let's see if he can admit it.


----------



## Keenly (Aug 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> stop with the whole "free speech" nonsense. if the thread is offensive it gets closed.
> 
> GR is trolling. plain and simple.
> 
> let's see if he can admit it.



you only read the first line i wrote didnt you

the people countering GR would be equally responsible for trolling wouldnt they?


----------



## jrh72582 (Aug 19, 2009)

I vote for closing this thread down. It's gotten to the point of ad nauseum, which means it's time to go......

Everything has been said - now decide for yourself.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

Keenly said:


> you only read the first line i wrote didnt you
> 
> the people countering GR would be equally responsible for trolling wouldnt they?


i read the whole thing.


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 19, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> I vote for closing this thread down. It's gotten to the point of ad nauseum, which means it's time to go......
> 
> Everything has been said - now decide for yourself.


 GrowRebel insists this thread's existence is 'important' somehow. And as an earlier poster remarked, to paraphrase; 'good strategy; start a polemical thread about 9/11 truth on a dope growing site. Then once you get everyone on your page, then what? march on Washington, or the Bilderbergers or whoever you want to believe is behind this? You want to believe you are unmasking dark forces while you bravely google and youtube; ooooo, so intrepid. You all swallow camels of credulousness while the tiniest flea of logic and rationality causes you to gag. BECAUSE YOU WISH A THING DOES NOT MAKE IT SO (with apologies to Neal Stephenson)


----------



## Keenly (Aug 19, 2009)

shnkrmn said:


> GrowRebel insists this thread's existence is 'important' somehow. And as an earlier poster remarked, to paraphrase; 'good strategy; start a polemical thread about 9/11 truth on a dope growing site. Then once you get everyone on your page, then what? march on Washington, or the Bilderbergers or whoever you want to believe is behind this? You want to believe you are unmasking dark forces while you bravely google and youtube; ooooo, so intrepid. You all swallow camels of credulousness while the tiniest flea of logic and rationality causes you to gag. BECAUSE YOU WISH A THING DOES NOT MAKE IT SO (with apologies to Neal Stephenson)


so basically in your post.... your saying political activism is bad


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 19, 2009)

Keenly said:


> so basically in your post.... your saying political activism is bad



This isn't political activism, this is wanking. Or are you saying GR is 'organizing the community'?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

shnkrmn said:


> This isn't political activism, this is wanking. Or are you saying GR is 'organizing the community'?


No it isn't ... you can only make comments that have nothing to do with the issue. You are just like the others ... giving an uneducated opinion. I'm getting the word out ... far more than what you are doing.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

jrh72582 said:


> I vote for closing this thread down. It's gotten to the point of ad nauseum, which means it's time to go......
> 
> Everything has been said - now decide for yourself.


If everything has been said then why do people keep posting?


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 19, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> If everything has been said then why do people keep posting?


Because with this post, the post count in this thread is up to 12,453. We're trying to establish an RIU record that will be impossible to surpass by future generations to come.


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 19, 2009)

Um, maybe because there is no 'word' to get out. You are a distraction to reality; a peddler of misinformation and therefore a tool. I'm not interested in your argument or countering it. It's too, too, too stupid. I think you thrive on feeling part of a persecuted reviled movement ('you are just like the others'). Pretty grandiose. Pretty sad.



QUOTE=GrowRebel;2935052]No it isn't ... you can only make comments that have nothing to do with the issue. You are just like the others ... giving an uneducated opinion. I'm getting the word out ... far more than what you are doing.[/QUOTE]


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

ViRedd said:


> Because with this post, the post count in this thread is up to 12,453. We're trying to establish an RIU record that will be impossible to surpass by future generations to come.



Why Vi ... I haven't seen you in a while ... what rock have you been hiding under? 



shnkrmn said:


> Um, maybe because there is no 'word' to get out.


Um ... that's just your uneducated opinion. Nothing more.


shnkrmn said:


> You are a distraction to reality;


And what reality is that? Where skyscrapers can fall into their own footprint due to fire?


shnkrmn said:


> a peddler of misinformation and therefore a tool.


Where have I posted misinformation? Point it out.


shnkrmn said:


> I'm not interested in your argument or countering it.


Of course you wouldn't be since you can't dispute the facts presented in this thread.


shnkrmn said:


> It's too, too, too stupid.


Another uneducated opinion. So?


shnkrmn said:


> I think you thrive on feeling part of a persecuted reviled movement


No ... unlike you I'm part of a grassroots movement that wants the truth of what happen on 911 and the people responsible held accountable.


shnkrmn said:


> ('you are just like the others'). Pretty grandiose. Pretty sad.


I can say the same thing about you and the rest of the deniers ... except for the grandiose part.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

So? Which people are responsible to be held acountable? A secret society? Freemasons? The Vatican? Willy Nelson? George W.? A rare supersmart subspeicies of albino ape living among us?

Do Tell!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> So? Which people are responsible to be held acountable? A secret society? Freemasons? The Vatican? Willy Nelson? George W.? A rare supersmart subspeicies of albino ape living among us?
> 
> Do Tell!


That's why we want a real investigation ... to get to the truth ... and find out who is really responsible for 911 ... I know that must be a difficult concept for an uneducated person like you to grasp.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> That's why we want a real investigation ... to get to the truth ... and find out who is really responsible for 911 ... I know that must be a difficult concept for an uneducated person like you to grasp.


actually, YOU didn't answer his question. i feel it was an honest question which you answered with an insult.

i will close it for that. you are baiting people simply to ridicule them. you are TROLLING.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> actually, YOU didn't answer his question. i feel it was an honest question which you answered with an insult.
> 
> i will close it for that. you are baiting people simply to ridicule them. you are TROLLING.


If 1 single small insignificant insult all it takes to close a thread I am certain you will be closing 75% of all threads on this site then. I will be keeping a close eye out for ANY insults and will flag that thread to be closed. Get ready to start closing thousands of threads FDD, after all you ARE a mod and have just given us your logic behind closing threads.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

dude, he's been doing it the WHOLE thread. hello?????? page1 ! page 1!!!!!!!!


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 19, 2009)

Hey Warlord! I'm an uneducated person too! Growrebel confirms this! Let's start a club, bro!



GrowRebel said:


> That's why we want a real investigation ... to get to the truth ... and find out who is really responsible for 911 ... I know that must be a difficult concept for an uneducated person like you to grasp.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

shnkrmn said:


> Hey Warlord! I'm an uneducated person too! Growrebel confirms this! Let's start a club, bro!


 
 Well my avatars wearing a hardhat, I must be uneducated.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

how about this, ................................. "if it conitnues, i will close the thread."

is that better, honey? 

fuckin' stalkers. 

you can't take shit from one thread into another. it's just bad forum etiquette. makes you a stalker as well. with a vendetta. lol


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> Well my avatars wearing a hardhat, I must be uneducated.


it's the kissy face that is giving it away.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

Ya, all the girls tell me I have a kissable face. didn't expect to hear it from you as well..........lmao!


----------



## West Coast Medicine (Aug 19, 2009)

Even if it was an inside job what are you or anybody else going to do about it? Try calling your congressman and complain to him. Even if it were exposed, our country would fall apart.


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 19, 2009)

lots of kissy lips here. No truthers though.

http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/



fdd2blk said:


> it's the kissy face that is giving it away.


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 19, 2009)

West Coast Medicine said:


> Even if it was an inside job what are you or anybody else going to do about it. Even if it were exposed, our country would fall apart.


 

i already brought this up and suggested civil war or at least an attack on washington but Gr said a letter putting them "on notice" would suffice. 

I guess as long as they know that we know that they are rat fink liars and murderers everything will work itself out.


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 19, 2009)

Works for me.



The Warlord said:


> i already brought this up and suggested civil war or at least an attack on washington but Gr said a letter putting them "on notice" would suffice.
> 
> I guess as long as they know that we know that they are rat fink liars and murderers everything will work itself out.


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> dude, he's been doing it the WHOLE thread. hello?????? page1 ! page 1!!!!!!!!


There are lots of folks who throw insults around like its nothing. I never take them personally, I don't think anyone REALLY can. After all we are totally anonymous here, no one knows anyone else for the most part. If it weren't for insults no one would be motivated to come back with a killer debating point to prove themselves right. People need to have a thicker skin, be more like you. I have seen plenty of insults thrown at yourself and you don't go running off to your room to cry into your pillow.( I can't actually verify that, but I will take the liberty of assuming it)

You know the old playground saying "Sticks and stones" right? I say let the thread be, don't ever kill it, let it live in infamy.


----------



## ViRedd (Aug 19, 2009)

OK, I have this from very reliable source: A.C.O.R.N. made a pact with the DNC, the devil and the construction unions to place explosives in both towers and building seven in an effort to make it look like Bush and Rumsfeld set the whole thing up. They knew that the more they could throw at Bush and Rumsfeld, the better chance Obama would have in the election eight years out.

Bush and Rumsfeld thought some of Sadam's henchmen did it, so they attacked Iraq in retaliation. The planes never existed, nor did any of the passengers ... they were only illusions set up by that agent of Satan, Chris Angel. 

Now, doesn't this make perfect sense?

I hope this settles any further questions about the truth of 9-11 forever. 

Vi


PS: If you don't believe what I posted above ... prove me wrong.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> actually, YOU didn't answer his question. i feel it was an honest question which you answered with an insult.
> i will close it for that. you are baiting people simply to ridicule them. you are TROLLING.


You know Fdd ... I'm getting real tired of you making these FALSE claims and accusations against me! How dare you state I've been TROLLING when all I've been doing it putting up scientific FACTS, professional opinions, and creditable witnesses to back my opinion and claims. What have you done besides try and BULLY me with your little pictures and insults!
You what me to answer the dummy's question ... alright we don't know who is behind it. That's why we want a REAL INVESTIGATION. You seem to have a big problem with that. Fine. But don't use some bullshit excuse to close a thread YOU DON'T LIKE!
You want to close this thread ... then close it ... but we will know it's due to nothing more than YOUR own prejudice!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

West Coast Medicine said:


> Even if it was an inside job what are you or anybody else going to do about it? Try calling your congressman and complain to him. Even if it were exposed, our country would fall apart.


So we just allow those responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands to get away with murder? Is that what you are suggesting? Letting them know that we know would make them extremely nervous. They already are with all the disinformation they are putting out now.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 19, 2009)

ViRedd said:


> OK, I have this from very reliable source: A.C.O.R.N. made a pact with the DNC, the devil and the construction unions to place explosives in both towers and building seven in an effort to make it look like Bush and Rumsfeld set the whole thing up. They knew that the more they could throw at Bush and Rumsfeld, the better chance Obama would have in the election eight years out.
> 
> Bush and Rumsfeld thought some of Sadam's henchmen did it, so they attacked Iraq in retaliation. The planes never existed, nor did any of the passengers ... they were only illusions set up by that agent of Satan, Chris Angel.
> Now, doesn't this make perfect sense?
> ...


Ah Vi ... you are still such an ass ... I can count on you being consistent, but how on earth can I get mad with a fellow jazz lover?


----------



## Keenly (Aug 19, 2009)

> *Joel S. Hirschhorn
> *Global Research
> August 11, 2009
> 
> ...


10characters


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 19, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> You know Fdd ... I'm getting real tired of you making these FALSE claims and accusations against me! How dare you state I've been TROLLING when all I've been doing it putting up scientific FACTS, professional opinions, and creditable witnesses to back my opinion and claims. What have you done besides try and BULLY me with your little pictures and insults!
> You what me to answer the dummy's question ... alright we don't know who is behind it. That's why we want a REAL INVESTIGATION. You seem to have a big problem with that. Fine. But don't use some bullshit excuse to close a thread YOU DON'T LIKE!
> You want to close this thread ... then close it ... but we will know it's due to nothing more than YOUR own prejudice!


and the fact that you can't debate without throwing insults. 


bullied you? wtf ever. 

wanna play politics?


this thread is now being monitored. personal attacks and insults will get it closed. it's the rules you all agreed to. thank you for playing.

 



Be Courteous!
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

No Cross-Posting
Do not post the same discussion more than once on a discussion forum or on many forums. Duplicate discussions are frustrating and counterproductive for other members, especially for those whose time and energy is limited. Duplicate discussions will be deleted.

Rollitup Discretion
Rollitup and its assigned agents reserves the right to remove a post which does not relate to the topic being discussed in the forum. In addition, Rollitup reserves the right to organize discussion forums in order to best serve the majority of our members. For example, narrow-interest or minimal activity topics may, at Rollitup discretion, be relocated to a more appropriate discussion forum, or deleted entirely. ...

Use of the site is at the discretion of the Administration of Rollitup, and that any use may be terminated by the Administration at any time.

[youtube]nYlZiWK2Iy8&NR[/youtube]


*unsubscribed*


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 20, 2009)

I didn't realize Barney Frank had anything to do with 9-11.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 20, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> and the fact that you can't debate without throwing insults.


 You mean like you? 




fdd2blk said:


> bullied you? wtf ever.


 Oh yeah ... every time I try to post something you jump in my shit ... I don't see you doing it to people that insult me. I don't see you saying no throwing insults to the deniers. No it's just me.



fdd2blk said:


> wanna play politics?


 You?



fdd2blk said:


> this thread is now being monitored.


 Golly gee ... I'm being monitor ... I'm really scared now. I'll be monitoring you too buddy boy ... to see if the rules applies to everyone or just the people you pick out.




fdd2blk said:


> personal attacks and insults will get it closed.


 ..and will you close it when YOU start the personal attacks(like your little troll picture) or are you above the rules?



fdd2blk said:


> it's the rules you all agreed to. thank you for playing.
> 
> Be Courteous!
> Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.
> ...


 What did the Barney Frank video have to do with this discussion? ... already breaking your own rules I see. Quite a double standard.



NoDrama said:


> I didn't realize Barney Frank had anything to do with 9-11.


You notice that too. Looks like it's okay for FDD to break the rules, and the people that agree with him. But if it's any of us ... well then ...he's have to close the thread!


Keenly said:


> 10characters


Keenly thanks for posting that ... I'm sure FDD will accuse you of trolling and spamming ... but thanks just the same. He can close this thread, but he can't stop the debate or the people that want a real investigation.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 20, 2009)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20920Damn 9/11 Truthers won't go away, so Nat Geo prepares another hit piece on 9/11 Truth movement?
National Geographic has announced it will air a documentary with the title: 911 Science and Conspiracy.
Title of the announcement:
Official Version or Cover-Up Conspiracy? The Truth Behind 9/11 Put to the Test in New National Geographic Channel Program.
Based on the comments about it at the announcement website here: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/...
it doesn't look like it will be very fair.
It's pretty obvious they are worried ... that's why the hit pieces are coming out.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 20, 2009)

http://clareswinney.wordpress.com/incarcerated-in-a-psychiatric-ward-because-i-said-911-was-an-inside-job/Held In A Psychiatric Ward & Called Delusional For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Clare Swinney brought a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority pointing out that TVNZs claim that Osama bin Laden carried out the attacks of 9/11 was an outright lie. Shortly afterwards, she was threatened and then incarcerated in a psychiatric ward. Following a week of compulsory treatment, the head psychiatrist told a judge that she should remain in hospital, as her belief that 9/11 was an inside job was evidence she was delusional. The judge agreed. This is her extraordinary story:


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 20, 2009)

@ the real spammers................. PLEASE i am asking nicely for you guys to STOP spamming this thread. If you dont agree to somthing then argue it (dont _fight _it) So far we got a small group of folks here that all believe the same thing ...we need a real investigation ...... thats all nothin more nothin less. And then we have What..huh , who is against our believes but LEGITIMATELY comes up with usefull info to argue his/her point. Thats all fine.............but then we have SPAMMERS like warlord who is constantly tryin to find ways to piss others off, and always talkin aliens and shit......and i am not just callin out warlord cause there are other spammers too. (no offence to anyone!) So can we just please go on with the topic (9/11) 
If someone believes that bill clinton caused all this then lets argue it.......lets NOT just sit here and talk about his cigars and his wife. THANK YOU ALL AN GOD BLESS.
 please folks this is an important topic!


----------



## The Warlord (Aug 20, 2009)

The point I am trying to make is that it's more likely aliens than the over complicated convoluted fantasy world you guys are living in. This whole thead is a fantasy.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 20, 2009)

The Warlord said:


> The point I am trying to make is that it's more likely aliens than the over complicated convoluted fantasy world you guys are living in. This whole thead is a fantasy.


Yeah you keep saying that ... but you have yet to show us why. Why is it more likely aliens? It's only complicated and convoluted to the people that can't handle the truth ... even a real investigation is something you can't seem to handle. The only thing you seem to be able to do is gloat and poke fun. You have no educated opinion on the matter. You can't accept the truth so you give us these knee-jerk reactions and  comments. It's all you are capable of doing. Since you can't offer an intelligent rebuttal ... so you act like a child and poke fun. That's the absolute best you can do. WH is the only one that at least makes an attempt. A poor one ... but one none the less. Come back when you are more educated on the issue. It's obvious you don't have a clue.
Folks want to bet he will come back still uneducated to poke more fun ... watch now.


----------



## West Coast Medicine (Aug 20, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> So we just allow those responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands to get away with murder? Is that what you are suggesting? Letting them know that we know would make them extremely nervous. They already are with all the disinformation they are putting out now.


Number one, who are "they"? If you know, please divulge. Without knowing who "they" are, or letting them know that we know who "they" are, we can't make "them" nervous, can we? Number two, without knowing who "they" are, we may well be talking about the entire United States government entity. If this is the case, how many lives would be lost to the civil war that ensues from factioning states? Would there be a full civil war, or would there be as much opposition against the sitting DC government to allow a coup d'etat? Unless this is the case, I can guarantee that we will be facing martial law, but under whose command will it be imposed? Who will know who is in control? Will you know if the Army battallions rolling through your neighborhood are friendly or enemy? Will said armies even know who the enemy is? How many states will be responsible for how many murders then? The reason that the majority of American's are acceptant of our governments explanation of what happened on 9/11/01 is because they are smart enough to know that if what you say what happened is true, they don't want to know and they would much rather continue life as it is. In the other scenario, if only a few of "them" were responsible, then how we identify "them"? Are "they" powerful? Who do we ask who "they" are?


----------



## NoDrama (Aug 20, 2009)

Ooh Rah, Devil Dog! Nice post, even the government doesn't have a list of whodunit. Osama is not credited or sanctioned by the US in any way for 911.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 20, 2009)

West Coast Medicine said:


> Number one, who are "they"? If you know, please divulge. Without knowing who "they" are, or letting them know that we know who "they" are, we can't make "them" nervous, can we? Number two, without knowing who "they" are, we may well be talking about the entire United States government entity. If this is the case, how many lives would be lost to the civil war that ensues from factioning states? Would there be a full civil war, or would there be as much opposition against the sitting DC government to allow a coup d'etat? Unless this is the case, I can guarantee that we will be facing martial law, but under whose command will it be imposed? Who will know who is in control? Will you know if the Army battallions rolling through your neighborhood are friendly or enemy? Will said armies even know who the enemy is? How many states will be responsible for how many murders then? The reason that the majority of American's are acceptant of our governments explanation of what happened on 9/11/01 is because they are smart enough to know that if what you say what happened is true, they don't want to know and they would much rather continue life as it is. In the other scenario, if only a few of "them" were responsible, then how we identify "them"? Are "they" powerful? Who do we ask who "they" are?



"They" are whoever was in charge of 9/11 and yes they are very powerfull. and why bring up the civil war ? that has nothing to do with lives lost on 9/11 . Them structures were not brought down by planes nor fire....just plain AND simply impossible. WHAT happened to the undamaged steel ? No one has answered that one yet...? So i dont need to sit here and even try to explain "they" I dont know who they are but I do know without a REAL investigation by THE AMERICAN GOV. none of us will ever know "WHO" killed all those folks on that day........... I care do you?

and i am just a normal person , i barley know what conspiricy means, but my mama gave me enough common sense to not believe that the buildings just fell with no resistance. 1 Thing that has never happened in history happened THREE times in one day !??!  i will just NEVER believe that sorry.


----------



## West Coast Medicine (Aug 21, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> "They" are whoever was in charge of 9/11 and yes they are very powerfull. and why bring up the civil war ? that has nothing to do with lives lost on 9/11 . Them structures were not brought down by planes nor fire....just plain AND simply impossible. WHAT happened to the undamaged steel ? No one has answered that one yet...? So i dont need to sit here and even try to explain "they" I dont know who they are but I do know without a REAL investigation by THE AMERICAN GOV. none of us will ever know "WHO" killed all those folks on that day........... I care do you?
> 
> 
> I don't know about fire because I'm not an engineer, nor are you. I am assuming that it was an inside job for purposes of discussion, and do not need to be convinced otherwise. Unless the "undamaged steel" tells us who "they" are, it is not relative to our discussion. You say you want a real investigation by the government, but you KNOW the government won't help you. Next, I never said anything about THE civil war, but the civil war that may "ensue" (result) from a conflict of interest between "they" and the American people. Until anybody knows if "they" are more or less powerful than the American public, we cannot assure there will not be a civil war over this issue. If our government was willing to tell us any pertinant information on 9/11/01, they would have by now, and no investigation now will result in finding any perpetrators or in pressuring any government officials to change their story of what happened (if that is the case). Simply, the U.S. government will not help investigate anything further on what happened on 9/11/01, there has already been a commission assembled and their report made!!!!! I dropped out of college to join the Marines to kill that S.O.B. Bin Laden that supposedly attacked our country, so did all my friends, good friends, and they are fighting and dying in Afghanistan every day for every drop of blood spilled on 9/11/01, so don't give me shit about "do I care," and if Bin Laden didn't do it I want to know who did, and if the government won't help, it's up to the American People to find out.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 21, 2009)

WASHINGTON &#8211; Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says pressure from fellow Cabinet members to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election helped convince him it was time to quit working for President George W. Bush.
In a new book, Ridge says that despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft he objected to raising the security level, according to a publicity release from the book's publisher.
In the end the alert level was not changed.
Bush's former homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, said Thursday that politics never played a role in determining alert levels.
Two tapes were released by al-Qaida in the weeks leading up to the election &#8212; one by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the other by a man calling himself "Azzam the American." Terrorism experts suspected that "Azzam the American" was Adam Gadahn, a 26-year-old Californian whom the FBI had been urgently seeking.
Townsend said the videotapes contained "very graphic" and "threatening" messages.
Ridge's publicist, Joe Rinaldi, said Ridge was out of town and was not doing interviews until his book, "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... and How We Can Be Safe Again," is released on Sept. 1.
In 2004, Ridge explained why he didn't feel the alert should be raised. "We don't have to go to (code level) orange to take action in response either to these tapes or just general action to improve security around the country," he said then.
In 2005, months after he resigned, Ridge said his agency has been the most reluctant to raise the alert level. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'" he said during a panel discussion in May 2005. But his book appears to be the first time he publicly attributes some of the pressure to politics.
The Homeland Security Department, which Ridge was the first person to lead, faced criticism in 2004 from Democrats who alleged that raising the alert level was designed to boost support for the Bush administration during an election year.
Ridge, who resigned on Nov. 30, 2004, said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the Bush administration.
Townsend said that anytime there was a discussion of changing the alert level, she first spoke with Ridge and then, if necessary, called a meeting of the homeland security council comprising the secretaries of defense and homeland security, the attorney general and CIA and FBI directors. The group then made a recommendation to the president about whether the color-coded threat level should be raised.
"Never were politics ever discussed in this context in my presence," she said.
Asked if there was any reason for Ridge to have felt pressured, Townsend said: "He was certainly not pressured. And, by the way, he didn't object when it was raised and he certainly didn't object when it wasn't raised."
A former Republican congressman and governor of Pennsylvania, Ridge was widely named as a potential running mate to John McCain in 2008 before the GOP candidate chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.


sorry bout the giant post but this is what i read so you guys may as well read too........


----------



## West Coast Medicine (Aug 21, 2009)

It's quite a coincidence that the Bush White House was playing "terror" at the expense of the American Public for (possibly) political gain. Although this has no direct bearing on our discussion, it shows that the Bush White House was willing to use terror threats to (possibly) enhance political favor. Good post Wyteboi.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 21, 2009)

West Coast Medicine said:


> Number one, who are "they"? If you know, please divulge. Without knowing who "they" are, or letting them know that we know who "they" are, we can't make "them" nervous, can we?


We don't know for sure who they are but I have my suspicions that "they" are the elite and members of PNAC, and other elite groups, but we can't know for sure who "they" are until we have a real investigation. We do know that Nick Rockefeller is one of them by the interview Alex Jones had with Aaron Russo before he died. I re-posted that back on page 119 post 1190. And if we weren't making "them" nervous "they" wouldn't be putting out shills and disinformation on the subject. Now would they?



West Coast Medicine said:


> Number two, without knowing who "they" are, we may well be talking about the entire United States government entity.


Again ... that's why we need a real investigation to find out who are responsible for what happen.



West Coast Medicine said:


> If this is the case, how many lives would be lost to the civil war that ensues from factioning states?


How many more lives are going to be lost if we allow these war criminals to go unpunished? Well over a million have died so far. Do you think they will stop the killing on their own?



West Coast Medicine said:


> Would there be a full civil war, or would there be as much opposition against the sitting DC government to allow a coup d'etat?


Most Americans are sheep ... I have my doubts about civil war. Besides the government is anticipating that ... why do you think they are building all these detention centers in the states?



West Coast Medicine said:


> Unless this is the case, I can guarantee that we will be facing martial law, but under whose command will it be imposed?


I have a feeling that's what the elite in government wants ... to impose martial law ... hence the detention centers.


West Coast Medicine said:


> Who will know who is in control?


Most likely the ones behind 911. The ones in control now.



West Coast Medicine said:


> Will you know if the Army battallions rolling through your neighborhood are friendly or enemy?


If they are rolling through my neighborhood I would not take them for friendly.



West Coast Medicine said:


> Will said armies even know who the enemy is?


Since they don't know who the enemy is in Afghanistan or Iraq ... I doubt they will know here, and just shoot and ask questions later like they always do.



West Coast Medicine said:


> How many states will be responsible for how many murders then?


How could I possibly know that? Your guess is as good as mine.



West Coast Medicine said:


> The reason that the majority of American's are acceptant of our governments explanation of what happened on 9/11/01 is because they are smart enough to know that if what you say what happened is true, they don't want to know and they would much rather continue life as it is.


That's no surprise that some people simply can't handle the truth, and they would think it smart to keep their heads in the sand ... but that will not stop the rest of us from fighting to get the truth out where it is generally known.



West Coast Medicine said:


> In the other scenario, if only a few of "them" were responsible, then how we identify "them"? Are "they" powerful? Who do we ask who "they" are?


We identify them through a real investigation. And that is what we "truthers" will continue to do until there is a real investigation and those responsible are held accountable. The people of NY are planning to vote in November to demand a real investigation ... by law congress has to act, but since congress no longer obeys the law it will probably boil down to some kind of civil action.
Now I have a question for you... how much of the 911 information in this thread have you gone over. And what ... if any ... of the evidence do you refute? Please be specific.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 21, 2009)

West Coast Medicine said:


> It's quite a coincidence that the Bush White House was playing "terror" at the expense of the American Public for (possibly) political gain. Although this has no direct bearing on our discussion, it shows that the Bush White House was willing to use terror threats to (possibly) enhance political favor. Good post Wyteboi.


Oh but it does have a bearing on our discussion ... those "terror alerts" were the result of the 911 false flag attack. 911 was done so the elite could have a perpetual war in order to loot the treasury and to gain control of the Middle East. They blame the "terrorists" and tell the sheep they will protect them ... they only have to give up a few rights, and some fell for it. Do you really think they could get away with the crimes they are committing now without 911?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 21, 2009)

This gives you an idea of how nervous "they" are ... 

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon
Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon.
This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as the Israeli Spy Ring and its connections to the attacks on the World Trade Towers. So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares doubt the official story.
WRH believed ... at that time ... there was a plane ... but for me there are still a lot of unanswered questions like why didn't the reporters and ground witnesses see the plane? Or the pilot that was ordered to check the damage. How could you miss seeing it in the air? 

Man if they ever do have a real investigation, and put it on TV the ratings would be sky high, put all the "reality" shows to shame. This shit would be better than any show or movie they could put out.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 21, 2009)

Check out this op-ed by Larry Flynt ... yeah THAT Larry Flynt... he's not talking about 911 per say but this op-ed of his give a good indication who is responsible and why ... and the most important message of the piece ... the real enemy. The message is far more important than the messenger.
The Real War Is Not Between the Left and the Right. It Is Between the Average American and the Ruling Class ...Who Would Make Us Their Slaves 
 Larry Flynt - wrote today on Huffington Post:
The American government -- which we once called our government -- has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich ... *Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters*. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, *corporations are the government.*
This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment's hesitation, they took our money -- yours and mine -- to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don't care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as "useless eaters"...
Oh no ... this couldn't be from the people that want to "protect us" from those nasty terrorists! Surely they wouldn't regard us common folk as "useless eaters" ... they wouldn't think of all those good folks killed on 911 that way ... right?  The elite don't give a damn about you ... face it.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 21, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> This gives you an idea of how nervous "they" are ...
> 
> The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon
> Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon.
> ...


That site was total bullshit, lol. Reverse psychology failure if I've ever seen one.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 21, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> That site was total bullshit, lol. Reverse psychology failure if I've ever seen one.


You have to clarify ... why is WRH total bullshit? Like I said I have my questions but WRH IMO is an excellent news source.

In fact I found this at their site ... 
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is Reviewing 9/11 Thermite Paper
[youtube]wrKOLpOAPso&eurl[/youtube]
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs received the Thermite paper on August 11, 2009. Contact Mr. Gibbs to find out what he is doing with this information. Here is the 9/11 Thermite document:
http://files.meetup.com/749288/NanoThermite paper.pdf
Download it and share it with any and all people especially government officials.
_For an explanation of the paper's findings in language geared to non-scientists, see:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html_

 I highly doubt he will review anything and even if he did, he will do nothing about it. But this still puts them on notice that we know and it is making them nervous.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 21, 2009)

WCM brings up a good point. Whose going to be doing the investigating? On a matter like this, we'd either have to fully trust a new investigation under some new cabinet of government (I don't know if I would be able to trust an investigation that took place in Obama's administration, to me his is almost identicle to the Bush administration) or some independent team (something I can't remember seeing or hearing about, which probably means is not likely to happen..).

So do the rest of you think you would feel comfortable if say they did have another investigation and the results came up the same? No gov. coverup, no conspiracy, 19 hijackers... 4 planes, the whole thing.

If another investigation ever does take place, that is really the only shot at getting anymore information about 911 out, but I don't see any other entitiy other than the US gov. to fund it. It would be kind of like me funding my own murder trial... I'd have every amount of motivation to NOT get the facts right, wouldn't I?


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 21, 2009)

The folks in this article name names ...

http://factsnotfairies.blogspot.com/search/label/EARLY%209-11%20REPORTAGE%20REVEALS%20SURPRISESEARLY 9-11 REPORTAGE REVEALS SURPRISES
New York Post, Sept. 13, page 59
"Beyond Pearl Harbor"
by Robert D. Novak
Novak's first sentence:
Security experts and airline officials agree privately that the simultaneous hijacking of four jetliners was an "inside job," probably indicating complicity beyond malfeasance.
...
In the last paragraph, Novak reports:
Stratfor.com, the private intelligence company, reported Tuesday, "The big winner today, intentionally or not, is the state of Israel."
_See also: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11_
_
_
 have a good weekend everybody ...


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 21, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> You have to clarify ... why is WRH total bullshit? Like I said I have my questions but WRH IMO is an excellent news source.


My bad, they were showing the footage the "shills" were using.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 23, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> WCM brings up a good point. Whose going to be doing the investigating?


Some how we have got to have an non partisan investigation ... perhaps civil? It's obvious the elite in government has no intentions of doing anything. It would be like putting a noose around their own necks.



PadawanBater said:


> On a matter like this, we'd either have to fully trust a new investigation under some new cabinet of government (I don't know if I would be able to trust an investigation that took place in Obama's administration, to me his is almost identicle to the Bush administration) or some independent team (something I can't remember seeing or hearing about, which probably means is not likely to happen..).


I completely agree.



PadawanBater said:


> So do the rest of you think you would feel comfortable if say they did have another investigation and the results came up the same? No gov. coverup, no conspiracy, 19 hijackers... 4 planes, the whole thing.


Not if they do the same as the last bogus investigation were there was no testifying under oath and both parties blocking evidence. It would be obvious as before of a cover-up.



PadawanBater said:


> If another investigation ever does take place, that is really the only shot at getting anymore information about 911 out, but I don't see any other entitiy other than the US gov. to fund it. It would be kind of like me funding my own murder trial... I'd have every amount of motivation to NOT get the facts right, wouldn't I?


We the people will have to find a way of doing it without the elites in government blocking our attempt to find the truth. We will have to see what happens in NY in November.



Operation 420 said:


> My bad, they were showing the footage the "shills" were using.


I had a feeling that what happen ... no problem


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 23, 2009)

http://www.ae911truth.org/Letter to NIST from AE911truth.org requesting meeting regarding NIST Reports 
Dr. Shyam Sunder
National Institute of Standards & Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070
July 20, 2009
Re: Request for meeting regarding NIST Reports - WTC7 and Twin Towers
Dear Dr. Sunder,
We have heard you state publicly after the WTC 7 press conference that it would not be productive for you to meet with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is quite
disappointing  as we now have over 700 architects and engineers at AE911Truth calling for a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. At what point will you take us seriously? Perhaps when our rapidly growing numbers reach 1,000 A/Es?
Here are our talking points:


South Tower Smoking Guns
_This view of the destruction of the South Tower of the World Trade Center displays a remarkable number of features that support the interpretation that it was destroyed by explosives. _
[youtube]6_B_Azbg0go[/youtube]


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 24, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The folks in this article name names ...
> 
> EARLY 9-11 REPORTAGE REVEALS SURPRISES
> New York Post, Sept. 13, page 59
> ...



This is a nice find reb ..... a few nice finds


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 24, 2009)

This was put up at another political pot forum. I'm trying to get a link from the OP pretty good info so I thought I'd put it up ... check it out ...
The WTC were designed to withstand a full-on impact from a Boeing 707. The Boeing 707 weighed between 103,145 lb (46,785 kg) (the lightest model out of three) and 146,400 lb (66,406 kg) (the heaviest of the three). Those figures are just the plane itself, not the maximum operating weight. The Boeing 707 could hold between 16,060 US gal (60,900 l) (the lightest of the three models) and 23,820 US gal (90,160 l) (the heaviest of the three). 

That means that the WTC was constructed to take an impact of a Boeing 707 weighing more than 146,400 lb (66,406 kg) (maximum flight capacity being 333,600 lb (151,320 kg)), with a fuel capacity of 23,820 US gal (90,160 l). Most of the fuel would vaporize/burn off on impact, but a significant amount would still make it into the towers. However, this amount, would not make the towers unstable.

Now let's look at the plane that hit the towers: the Boeing 767.

The Boeing 767 weighs between 176,650 lb (80,130 kg) (the lightest model) and 
229,000 lb (103,870 kg) (the heaviest model). It can carry 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L) of fuel. That is roughly the same amount of fuel as the 707. Already here we can rule out, that the amounts of fuel dumped into the WTC couldn't have been greater than anticipated, since the 767 doesn't carry more fuel than the 707.

We can, however, see that the 767 weighs quite alot more than the 707. But if impact would have been an issue, the problems would have shown immediately: cracking columns and a severely weakened structure would force the building into the ground in a matter of minutes - not hours. And since the plane doesn't carry these "massive amounts" of fuel you talk of, it becomes clear, that fuel fires from a 767 would not be worse than fuel fires from a 707, at least in amounts.

*A hit from 767 would not pose a significantly greater risk to the WTC than a hit from a 707.*


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 25, 2009)

Thats VERY true GR. Been lookin at that for along time now. I just dont understand why/how this is SO hard to believe ?? ITS ALL SCIENCE. well i guess now we know just how much THE MEDIA controls peoples thoughts....


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 25, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> Thats VERY true GR. Been lookin at that for along time now. I just dont understand why/how this is SO hard to believe ?? ITS ALL SCIENCE. well i guess now we know just how much THE MEDIA controls peoples thoughts....


Wyteboi ... some people simply can't handle the truth. So they disregard the facts and create a fantasy in their head. The don't want to believe that the elite thinks of them as cattle ... to be used in what ever manner they see fit. We keep the pressure on by continuing to present the evidence ... and work to make it generally known. Because we talk about it and spread the word, it will make it more difficult for them to stage another false flag attack.


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 26, 2009)

http://www.blip.tv/file/2505789Video - Sister of fallen 9/11 firefighter speaks about her brother and 9/11
Michele Little, the sister of fallen firefighter David M. Weiss, speaks about her brother and her feelings regarding 9/11.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/20950Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel
Six days after September 11th, National Geographic Today (NGT) published one of the very first descriptions of the official myth for what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.[1] This article exaggerated the little known facts about the fires in the towers, equated gas temperatures with steel temperatures, and detailed the long-surviving but incorrect Pancake Theory of collapse. Since that time, millions of people have been killed or injured in the 9/11 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that originated from the official myth about 9/11.[2,3] Fortunately, this week it was announced that the NGTs parent, the National Geographic Channel (NG Channel), is scheduled to broadcast a new television special covering the science behind the events of 9/11. We can only assume that this new show is meant to correct the record and apologize for the companys false statements that contributed to the ongoing wars.
I have my doubts since NGC is owned by the neocon Murdoch.


http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2009/08/fox-news-5-reports-wtc-7-collapse.htmlFox news 5 reports WTC 7 collapse before it happens
Another news outlet reporting the collapse before it happen.


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 26, 2009)

that post brought back some memories ............bad ones. There is so much proof it is a joke to even argue the official story


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 27, 2009)

WACLA delivers scientific proof of TREASON to members of Congress and other D.C. players DAY THREE 


[youtube]_uru8fF9VNc&eurl[/youtube]
These guys are the greatest. They got Shoemer, Dean, Specter, and the senator from Hawaii. There was another one they gave a copy to, don't know his name, but he almost had a baby when they mention treason.Great work WACLA


----------



## Keenly (Aug 27, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> WACLA delivers scientific proof of TREASON to members of Congress and other D.C. players DAY THREE
> 
> 
> [youtube]_uru8fF9VNc&eurl[/youtube]
> These guys are the greatest. They got Shoemer, Dean, Specter, and the senator from Hawaii. There was another one they gave a copy to, don't know his name, but he almost had a baby when they mention treason.Great work WACLA


nice job grow, i saw this earlier this morning and figured you had it covered

ill post the letter that goes along with it

Dear Honorable Congress Person, 

We the People, in order to restore rule of law and accountability to our Republic, respectfully insist that you, as an elected representative, squarely face the facts concerning the events of September 11, 2001 and the implications thereof.
It is our moral and civic duty to entrust to you facts and scientific analyses in the form of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers that clearly and conclusively prove thousands of our fellow human beings and citizens were murdered in controlled and criminal demolitions on September 11, 2001.

Plausible deniability of these facts and evidence is no longer possible. If you fail to acknowledge and act immediately and decisively on this evidence, then your inaction will constitute misprision of treason in the least, outright treason at worst. The time is now to fulfill your oath to the Constitution and stand tall in the face of the corruption of our Republic. We the People stand with you.
Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

And

§ 2382. Misprision of Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

Sincerely,
WeAreChangeLA


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 28, 2009)

Good post GR and Keenly ! 

Most of all Thank WACLA for all their work!!


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 29, 2009)

Notice all the reports of explosions in the 911 news cast? Check it out ... it supports that those towers were demo.
http://www.archive.org/details/Between_the_LiesVideo: news broadcasts from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, the film shows the media lies that stuck with the public & the truths that were forgotten


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 30, 2009)

A new 911 web site is under construction ... it will show all the scientific evidence to support that the towers were brought down by demo ...
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/Anouncing a new web site: The Science of 9/11
There is much controversy over what happened that day, not only between those who support and those who dispute the official explanation but also among various groups within the 9/11 truth movement. The basic purpose of this website is to examine and present soundly based scientific evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. It is hoped that this will provide a clear picture by collecting together the most compelling evidence for demolition, while avoiding those aspects of 9/11 which are still in dispute.
This is an au site ... I'm really impressed by how many foreign countries are interested in uncovering the truth of what happen that day.
Here's a new video of the WTC 7 collapsing. 

New collapse footage of WTC7 and North Tower - Nov 2008
[youtube]oQeQi5XXfz0&eurl[/youtube]


----------



## hom36rown (Aug 31, 2009)

Hey, GR, there is a new show on National Geographic tonight called 9/11: Conspiracy and Science. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067#tab-Overview


----------



## GrowRebel (Aug 31, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Hey, GR, there is a new show on National Geographic tonight called 9/11: Conspiracy and Science. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067#tab-Overview


Yep ... I know ... I posted it on this page. Will be interesting to see if they will show the science, but like I said before ... I have my doubts.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 1, 2009)

just got done watching it

and it slants pretty heavily to the conventional story, i wish they had gone more non partison and given both sides an even chance to debate the facts

i think while the 9/11 truthers were marching at ground zero you can see alex jones for 1/2 a second


but they didnt even put on what he had to say, because you know he wont just stand there


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 1, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=video_response

This video is Michael Hess talkin right after him and Barry Jennings got un-stuck from wtc 7. They were stuck in 7 for a few hours while buildings 1 and 2 fell. They both heard multiple explosions while stuck in building 7. (In fact , explosions are why they were stuck in building 7) Now here is a Barry Jennings interview from right after they got un-stuck. He also claims there were explosions at the bottom of building 7 (Thats why they were stuck)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI&feature=related

Now here is a recently released interview of jennings stating he was "walking over bodies" in trade center 7. You have to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU&feature=related


Now this would be a KEY witness *IF* they were to ever do a REAL investigation on this case but very shortly after they released his interview he came up DEAD. The death is over a month old now and the cause of death has still not been released !! My opinion is the poor dude killed himself because he knew the elite was going to do it anyways.
Now the other key witness Michael Hess is saying that he never heard explosions or never seen any bodies ?? Of course he is just now changing his story cause i imagine he dont wanna die with Jennings.
WHY would jennings make up a horrid story like that ? 100% controlled demo


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 1, 2009)

Umm no you didn't.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 1, 2009)

PrincessTurdstool said:


> I've been reading this thread and getting a headache...
> 
> 
> *Pass*


You had a "headache" way before you got here. You seem to have a problem with pot smokers? Then what the fuck are you doing on this forum? You can give your stupid uneducated opinion, but don't come hear insulting us for smoking pot, you are in the wrong place for that.kiss-ass


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 1, 2009)

PrincessTurdstool said:


> I've been reading this thread and getting a headache...
> 
> I couldn't figure out how anyone made sense of it...
> 
> ...


So u <--like that abbreviation dont you
read a post (a very serious one) and all u took out of it , is the word dude ? Did you watch the video's/are you concerned with 9-11 or are you just skimming through the thread *_toke* _and seeing mistakes in spelling *_choke cough* _and slang words like "dude", "bro"....ect.... or are u just callin me out cause my name is whiteboy mixed with the word dude *_toke* _HAS to mean *_holding breath* _I smoke pot and believe everything i see on internet ?
OR do u really believe everything you see on the tv ? 
*_choking almost to a puke* _I saw it! man it was awesome bro *_still trying to recover* _David Gregory said the fuckin heat from those fires melted those buildings *_finally another toke* _man you shoulda seen um fall , it was somthing like outta the *_puking* _movies dogg. the arabs are gonna kill us all , we gotta go get all the ammo and guns we can get . 


God bless u too though, and thank you very much for reading ! 
hey whatever your opinion is ...thats fine with me !


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 2, 2009)

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf"What Hit the Pentagon?"
Written by Dr. Frank Legge, this is a good analysis of the reasons for contradictory evidence to exist about the Pentagon.
Crucial to this debate is the video testimony of the Secretary for Transportation, Norman
Mineta, to the 9/11 Commission. He entered the PEOC2 (Presidential Emergency Operations
Center) under the White House and saw that the Vice President, Dick Cheney, was already
there.* A young man came in and said to Cheney "The plane is 50 miles out", then "The plane is
thirty miles out", and when it got down to 10 miles out the young man also said "Does the
order still stand?" and Cheney angrily confirmed that it did*
Cheney gave the order to stand down.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fema_911.htmlThe FEMA WTC Collapse Analysis Farce
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.


http://www.911video.de/news/fujita/fu-en.htmMajor 9/11 Breakthrough in Japan Spectacular Support for Yukihisa Fujita
Councilor Fujita is a current member and former director of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense. In this function he questioned 9/11 three times in parliament. Fujita claims that 9/11 as the main reason for the "War on Terror" needs to be newly investigated in order to find peaceful solutions.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11BasicQuestions.html9/11: All In One Chunk
*Webmaster commentary:*

One single URL/file to send around.
Posted (along with the below stories) in anticipation of the National Geographic Channel's latest 9-11 hatchet job tonight.
Smithsonian Channel is much more informative and less propagandistic than NatGeo anyway. You should trade channels with your local cable company.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fire.htm?q=wtc_fire.htmFLASHBACK - The 9/11 WTC Fires: Where's the Inferno?
The official story is that the World Trade Towers were engulfed in an inferno sufficient to melt steel, yet people are clearly seen standing in the gaps made by the aircraft, and the glass windows, which would melt at a far lower temperature than the steel, remain solid.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 8, 2009)

http://dprogram.net/2009/09/07/video-jason-bermas-debunks-national-geographic-911-hit-piece/*Video: Jason Bermas Debunks National Geographic 9/11 Hit Piece*
Jason Rips into National Geographics 9/11 hit piece and takes on the no planes theory, that is designed to make the real 9/11 Truth movement look foolish.

I will post more 911 news later.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 8, 2009)

Take a look at the comment section of NG forum ... looks like folks just didn't buy their propaganda ... 

National Geographic Forum


----------



## dababydroman (Sep 8, 2009)

its impossible


----------



## Theanswerto1984is1776 (Sep 9, 2009)

You all need to watch Loose Change Final Cut: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mk7htWPF874 Part 1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=yAS4TIYF68A Part 2. That is all you need to know about 911. IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, INSTEAD OF JUST CALLING PEOPLE LIKE ALEX JONES CHILDISH NAMES!!!!!!!!! I also recomend watching Terrorstorm( http://youtube.com/watch?v=2dYWP9AOGBo) and The Obama Deception( http://youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw) if you really want to be in tune with what is currently going on. Even celebrities like Charlie Sheen, Jesse Ventura, and Willie Nelson are waking up to the truth. The sooner everyone else wakes up to this NEW WORLD ORDER we can all live free again, like our forfathers had envisioned!


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 9, 2009)

80,000 New Yorkers demand a new investigation into 9/11
On Friday, September 4, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) submitted 28,000 petition signatures as a supplement to the 52,000 signatures submitted on June 24 calling for a citywide referendum on the creation of a local, independent commission to investigate 9/11.
More ...

Richard Gage article on 9/11 WTC contolled demolitions appears in WorldArchitectureNews.com
*Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas...*
By
Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler
In all likelihood, you are unaware of the most important facts involving the destructions of the World Trade Center buildings. Nearly all the mainstream information sources and government officials have kept crucial information hidden from the public. This brief article will provide a clear explanation as to what actually happened to the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001.
_{Readers can add comments at the end of the article /StingRay)_


Mr. Roff, 9/11 Truthers Are No Fringe Movement 
An acerbic attack on Charlie Sheen for the crime of questioning the official story behind 9/11, a sentiment shared by the majority of Americans and indeed the majority of the 9/11 Commission itself, appearing in U.S. News and World Report this morning relies upon cliched and completely unfounded terms of reference in a poor effort to smear Sheen as part of a conspiracy fringe.
In his hit piece, author Peter Roff labels 9/11 truth as an extremist theory and compares its adherents with those who believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing Kennedy.
So thatll be over two thirds of the entire population of the U.S. then, Mr. Roff! In what possible way can this be described as fringe thinking?

9/11 Radio Transmissions of WTC 2 Firefighters
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.
*Webmaster's Commentary:* 
This was the floor supposedly engulfed in an 800+ degree fire.


9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC
[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission.


The 9/11 WTC Collapses: Questions the Media Won't Address


The Collapse of WTC 1: Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw
The core of Madrid's Windsor Building withstood an 18+ hour 800ºC fire. WTC 1 collapsed in minutes even though its core was solid and received no significant heating. Why?


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_fire.htmlWorld Trade Center 2: There Was No Inferno
If the official account of the WTC fires were true then Mr Praimnath would not have survived because the floor he was on would have been consumed by an 800ºC inferno.
The fact that he is alive proves an inferno did not exist.


FLASHBACK - FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11
Kenney: "We're currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site."
__
_With the anniversary of 911 coming I'm sure there will be plenty of news to post ... stay tuned._
_
_


----------



## Theanswerto1984is1776 (Sep 9, 2009)

*Nice work GrowRebel! Nice to see there are some awakened brethren on here!! Keep it up! There will be a 911 street action Thurs, Fri, and Sat if anyone can make it. Check out WeareChange.org!!*


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 10, 2009)

they still had burning coals (and metal) in december ?!  wasnt there already enough miracles that day........geeeez. So now we are up to 4 or 5 things that have NEVER happened in history ............all happened that day.
FIND IT ALL GR ! 
I am starting to feel a lil better about this mess because of how many more folks have picked up on this and decided to join the Truth. 
...............


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 10, 2009)

9/11 Commission Report Questioned by
Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Officials 

Many respected senior members of the military, intelligence services, and government have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Some even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. Below are the highly revealing public statements on this vital topic of over 50 prominent public servants with links for verification and further investigation.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 10, 2009)

did you already say something about how 6 out of to 10 people on the 9/11 commission have come out publicly saying that its false?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 10, 2009)

Keenly said:


> did you already say something about how 6 out of to 10 people on the 9/11 commission have come out publicly saying that its false?


Wow, really? Is that true Keenly? 

You wouldn't happen to have a source for that would you?


----------



## Iron Lion Zion (Sep 11, 2009)

Copied and Pasted this from something I said in another thread...

To those who think this was a conspiracy:
1) You're fucking stupid... (I had a much larger statement here, but after re-reading it, I decided those 3 words summed up what I had to say).
2) Yes, lets kill 3,000 people, destroy the airline industry, destroy the stock market, destroy the 2 most important buildings in the world economy all in the pursuit of oil.
3) 1993 WTC bombing - They tried and failed, 2001 was them finishing what they had attempted.
4) Lets crash a plane in a field and kill hundreds of lives here just to make it seem like a terrorist attack.
5) Lets crash a plane into the most/second most important government building in America to add to make it seem like it was terrorists.

Honestly, use a little logic every once in awhile instead of spouting ignorant bullshit solely in the pursuit of finding another flaw in Bush.
On the first page of this I read a person post something along the lines of "Willie Nelson said he has seen a lot of explosions in Las Vegas and says the 911 explosions look exactly the same."
Wow, you are trying to make an argument and you use Willie Nelson as a source. Please go back to 8th grade and learn the difference between credible information and bullshit. Seriously, I am yet to see a credible argument, with solid facts, from respected people supporting 911 as an inside job. I wonder if Willie Nelson has ever seen 3,000 people die in one day out in Vegas?

Also, I saw someone reference Michael Moore. Have you watched any of his movies for christ's sake? They are propaganda and nothing more. For example, in "Sicko" he talks about how prisoners at Guatanamo Bay have better health care then we do as Americans. He also hints that Cubans have better health care than us. He then insinuates that countries, such as France, which he references a lot, have cheaper/better healthcare. What he fails to mention is that France also has a pay roll tax that is 3 times our own. Again, learn to dig through stupid, one-sided arguments in order to make a point.

If you honestly want to make a point that the most economic savvy country would do everything I listed above, with the myopic goal of refining/collecting more oil, as I mentioned above, you're fucking stupid.


----------



## Iron Lion Zion (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=video_response
> 
> This video is Michael Hess talkin right after him and Barry Jennings got un-stuck from wtc 7. They were stuck in 7 for a few hours while buildings 1 and 2 fell. They both heard multiple explosions while stuck in building 7. (In fact , explosions are why they were stuck in building 7) Now here is a Barry Jennings interview from right after they got un-stuck. He also claims there were explosions at the bottom of building 7 (Thats why they were stuck)
> 
> ...


Have you ever seen the South Park episode with the Mormons? I am specifically referencing the song "Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb." Ok, back on topic.

The two planes that hit the WTC were from Boston and NY right? (I don't remember the exact cities, but my point is they were from the North East). The planes were both 767s. They can hold roughly 24,000 gallons of fuel. Again, 24,000 gallons. The planes were chosen because they would have basically all of their fuel after departure. Do you know what happens when fire and gasoline meet? I will put it so you can understand - they go Boom. Now, when things go boom, there is a lot of heat. Heat needs room, so it expands. It will even expand to elevator shafts and stairwells believe it or not! What you failed to mention is that there were people in the lobby who witnessed the giant fireball hurling through these areas and eventually leaving through the bottom.

Also, I saw someone claiming explosives caused the towers to fall. How were they not detonated with 24,000 gallons of fuel igniting? How did the pilots precisely navigate to the appropriate floors where the "bombs" were located to make it seem more real? You also said the towers were meant to withstand an impact from a 707 with a lot of fuel. Obviously this means the towers are strong. Yet in every video you posted those "explosions" looked pathetic and weak, not buying that bombs were set up to detonate and bring down the building - they would have to be bigger and not in the middle of the building... even 8 year olds who play Jenga know if you fuck with the bottom of the tower it goes down, yet they still decided to plant "bombs" in the middle - yah, ok.

Finally, I saw someone discussing thermite. Fe2O3 + 2Al are the required reactants. Iron Oxide + Aluminum. Iron Oxide = Rust and Planes are made of aluminum. Rust + Aluminum + Fire = Explosion. Wow, way to try and go scientific on us, without mentioning how common these reactants are. Thermite is also extremely reactive with fire. Just a little spark can make it explode... yet you are claiming it could withstand a huge fireball from a plane with 24,000 gallons of fuel without igniting... go retake chemistry, please.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> Have you ever seen the South Park episode with the Mormons? I am specifically referencing the song "Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb." Ok, back on topic.
> 
> The two planes that hit the WTC were from Boston and NY right? (I don't remember the exact cities, but my point is they were from the North East). The planes were both 767s. They can hold roughly 24,000 gallons of fuel. Again, 24,000 gallons. The planes were chosen because they would have basically all of their fuel after departure. Do you know what happens when fire and gasoline meet? I will put it so you can understand - they go Boom. Now, when things go boom, there is a lot of heat. Heat needs room, so it expands. It will even expand to elevator shafts and stairwells believe it or not! What you failed to mention is that there were people in the lobby who witnessed the giant fireball hurling through these areas and eventually leaving through the bottom.
> 
> ...


Wow dude I have never seen a post that was so FACTUALLY inaccurate on this forum to date.

You have the wrong planes, the wrong fuel load, the wrong fuel type, your understanding of thermite is NON EXISTENT. you understand nothing being presented here because you refuse to read any of the evidence shown. IE you do not think for yourself because you are completely close minded.

If you really think that the planes aluminum deconstructed itself into a powder, then combined with rust from steel girders that are painted and covered with spray on asbestos and then somehow got the 2500F heat required to start the reaction you sir are the truly uneducated. You don't need a chemistry degree, thermite can get so hot that it will glow red, and yet still it will not start the reaction, you need something 4-5 times hotter than Jet fuel ( Which is NOT gasoline) burns at in open air. All these supposed "Facts" you are throwing out there have all been THOROUGHLY debunked as false, all of them.

When you can come up with some provable facts please post back, otherwise read the whole thread so you don't have to keep sticking your foot in your mouth, only to take said foot out and replace it with the other foot. Thermite does not explode. LOL just another "Fact" you got wrong. 

Your posts did make me laugh though, +rep to you!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 11, 2009)

you all free the world yet? 

happy anniversary. 


[youtube]UpONEX8tme8[/youtube]


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Wow dude I have never seen a post that was so FACTUALLY inaccurate on this forum to date.


I dont think i have either , i mean geez , did you read ANYTHING ? You have NO idea what you are saying, so how can i even respond.......
.............................................................
...............................


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> To those who think this was a conspiracy:
> 1) You're fucking stupid... (I had a much larger statement here, but after re-reading it, I decided those 3 words summed up what I had to say).


That's a common statement from you deniers ... yet you seem unable to point out why ... and you know why? ... because you can't ... you can only call names and think yourself clever for having done so.




Iron Lion Zion said:


> 2) Yes, lets kill 3,000 people, destroy the airline industry, destroy the stock market, destroy the 2 most important buildings in the world economy all in the pursuit of oil.


It was for more than the pursuit of oil and you would have known that if you had taken the time to look at the evidence in this thread ... it's obvious you are making an uneducated comment. I put up information as to a possible reason why 911 was done back on page 79 post 795 and post 1190 on page 119, and post 1290 on page 129. Of course we won't know for sure until a real investigation takes place.




Iron Lion Zion said:


> 3) 1993 WTC bombing - They tried and failed,


Nor did the building collapsed.



Iron Lion Zion said:


> 2001 was them finishing what they had attempted.


There is no evidence of that ... you are merely parroting what you were told.



Iron Lion Zion said:


> 4) Lets crash a plane in a field and kill hundreds of lives here just to make it seem like a terrorist attack.


Yeah ... that way we can commit war crimes, torture, loot the treasury ... spy on Americans, dish out billions to our friends in the MIC and oil industries ... control the middle east ... without questions from the simpletons. And it worked in your case.




Iron Lion Zion said:


> 5) Lets crash a plane into the most/second most important government building in America to add to make it seem like it was terrorists.


That way we can have perpetual wars and continue to loot the treasury without question from the simpletons. Worked like a charm in your case.



Iron Lion Zion said:


> Honestly, use a little logic every once in awhile instead of spouting ignorant bullshit solely in the pursuit of finding another flaw in Bush.


You need to follow your own advice.




Iron Lion Zion said:


> On the first page of this I read a person post something along the lines of "Willie Nelson said he has seen a lot of explosions in Las Vegas and says the 911 explosions look exactly the same."


That was the first page ... there are almost 150, since you accept what you are told blindly, I sure you felt you need not bother.




Iron Lion Zion said:


> Wow, you are trying to make an argument and you use Willie Nelson as a source.


Wow trying to make an uneducated argument with nothing to back it ... how unique. 



Iron Lion Zion said:


> Please go back to 8th grade and learn the difference between credible information and bullshit.


You first ... 



Iron Lion Zion said:


> Seriously, I am yet to see a credible argument, with solid facts, from respected people supporting 911 as an inside job. I wonder if Willie Nelson has ever seen 3,000 people die in one day out in Vegas?


It's not our fault you can't comprehend facts.



Iron Lion Zion said:


> Also, I saw someone reference Michael Moore. Have you watched any of his movies for christ's sake? They are propaganda and nothing more. For example, in "Sicko" he talks about how prisoners at Guatanamo Bay have better health care then we do as Americans. He also hints that Cubans have better health care than us. He then insinuates that countries, such as France, which he references a lot, have cheaper/better healthcare. What he fails to mention is that France also has a pay roll tax that is 3 times our own.


Moore's films have nothing to do with what happen on 911 ... but of course you wouldn't know that.



Iron Lion Zion said:


> Again, learn to dig through stupid, one-sided arguments in order to make a point.


Again learn to take your own advice.



Iron Lion Zion said:


> If you honestly want to make a point that the most economic savvy country would do everything I listed above, with the myopic goal of refining/collecting more oil, as I mentioned above, you're fucking stupid.


Fucking stupid is as fucking stupid does.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I dont think i have either , i mean geez , did you read ANYTHING ? You have NO idea what you are saying, so how can i even respond.......
> .............................................................
> ...............................


LOL I know, like when he says when fire and gasoline meet they go boom. haha it might catch fire, but it certainly does not go Boom unless the vessel carrying the gasoline gets hot enough to create a large pressure difference which is the cause of the boom, not the gasoline. Gasoline only explodes when it is stoichiometrically mixed with air and then pressurized and ignited. I learned all this stuff in 3rd grade, but I was educated when the schools were not dominated by federal mandate. I shake my head at the education system today and how dumbed down some people have become. His whole post is childs play to completely tear down and invalidate, every part of it is false.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

Check out all the counties questioning 911 ...

[youtube]bEweM7WfGts[/youtube]

The above is in Italian but you can get the jest of it.

This one is from the Danish ...
[youtube]jze33vZCpwo[/youtube]

This one is from Canada ...
[youtube]sWy20gUMSGk[/youtube]

This one is from Russia ...
[youtube]0U9xbi7DKYU[/youtube]

More 911 news coming ... stay tune.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> 4) Lets crash a plane in a field and kill hundreds of lives here just to make it seem like a terrorist attack.


What lives ? 
*Have u EVER seen or heard from any family member or anyone else proving there were people on that plane ?!!!!???*


One more thing to throw in there...... Where are ANY of the victims family members from any one of those planes that day???...........

Oh and by the way 100,000 gallons of jet fuel could NOT have done that type of "perfect" damage.


----------



## Iron Lion Zion (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> What lives ?
> *Have u EVER seen or heard from any family member or anyone else proving there were people on that plane ?!!!!???*
> [/COLOR]


A friend I have grown up with lost her uncle. Got any more genius questions?

I also pointed out Michael Moore and Willie Nelson, because someone tried to bring them into this argument. I was just pointing out how their opinions on anything are irrelevant.

Someone said I have the wrong planes... even someone else who follows this conspiracy said they were 767s and that they held 24,000 gallons.

Think about it, if we wanted to get into the middle east by driving our own planes into the building that was enough... saying "terrorists have crashed planes into WTC towers" would easily have been enough to get us over there. Why would our government risk this apparent exposure to their conspiracy by planting bombs to blow up the building, destroying part of their own government building, and crashing a plane that apparently had nobody on it into the ground?


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> A friend I have grown up with lost her uncle. Got any more genius questions?


First off , i am very sorry for your friends uncle. 
yes i have another where did your friends uncle die ? ................i'll wait..............


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

*Sad anniversary all............ 
Thank you , keen, drama, reb and the rest of you guys who give a fuck.
We are making progress, very slowly but productive ! Look at all them links provided by reb showing the concern of other countries. Just a couple of years ago , i was gonna give up on it and just accept that no vaseline was used, but only a couple years later there are THOUSANDS more folks willing to check out the truth (or at least the facts) Please keep it up yall ! And please pat yourselves on the back for all the work YOU have put into this. You guys are some of the ONLY REAL people left. 

oh and to all the suit dummies , i dont have to use 25 letter words (spelled correctly) to show my concern. Just because i use geto ass words (thats who i am) dont mean i am stupid or uneducated ..... it just means i dont have to fake who i am to express myself. would i win a live debate in the political world.......Fuck no , thats what i have GR for.
HAVE A GOOD DAY ALL!!
GOD BLESS!!*


----------



## Keenly (Sep 11, 2009)

the man asked for on the plane, not on the ground


(building counts as on the ground)



hey, how about you read through this thread instead of coming in here, not reading a damn thing


and trying to go through every single thing thats already been said in the million pages of this thread



all of your "claims" which severely lack education on the subject as well as evidence that it happened, have been said before

we have been over all of this


and it looks like your already running out of facts, and are about to continue with insults, as you did when you first started


insults diminish your credibility


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Keenly said:


> the man asked for on the plane, not on the ground
> 
> 
> (building counts as on the ground)


thats why i said "...............................i'll wait................"


----------



## Keenly (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> *Sad anniversary all............
> Thank you , keen, drama, reb and the rest of you guys who give a fuck.
> We are making progress, very slowly but productive ! Look at all them links provided by reb showing the concern of other countries. Just a couple of years ago , i was gonna give up on it and just accept that no vaseline was used, but only a couple years later there are THOUSANDS more folks willing to check out the truth (or at least the facts) Please keep it up yall ! And please pat yourselves on the back for all the work YOU have put into this. You guys are some of the ONLY REAL people left.
> 
> ...


i requested today off of work about 3 months ago

im going to go to the nearby movie theatres (right across the street from eachother)


and put down as many "investigate 9/11" flyers on windshields i can

on the back will be a bullet pointed list of sketchy things as well as flat out lies concerning the day that sucked


the men responsible will not go unpunished for their treason, murder, and war crimes against humanity


----------



## Keenly (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> thats why i said "...............................i'll wait................"


 yeah

im expecting something like

"well i dont know where but he is six feet under now"


sorry he died man, lots did, which is why we should be really pissed off that the official story has been falsified


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i requested today off of work about 3 months ago
> 
> im going to go to the nearby movie theatres (right across the street from eachother)
> 
> ...



probably didnt even take off for your birthday but took off work to deliever VERY important flyers. I owe you a dinner for that one! ......... an soon as my printer is fixed i think i'll do the same.
MUCH MUCH LOVE FOR THAT ONE KEEN!!


----------



## Keenly (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> probably didnt even take off for your birthday but took off work to deliever VERY important flyers. I owe you a dinner for that one! ......... an soon as my printer is fixed i think i'll do the same.
> MUCH MUCH LOVE FOR THAT ONE KEEN!!


of course i took off my b day =)


i ran out so im back with more ink to print out 800 more


gonna take about 2 hours


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

Keenly said:


> of course i took off my b day =)
> 
> 
> i ran out so im back with more ink to print out 800 more
> ...


Excellent idea keenly ... did I put up the video of wearechange and their freeway blogging?
... more news ...
http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/allport/allport11.htmlTop 10 Reasons For A New 911 Investigation
*10) The Project for a New American Century 
*This group of neo-cons, including several in the Bush Administration, made it clear years before 9/11 that "a new Pearl Harbor" would be necessary to rally public opinion around their violent plans for taking over the Middle East ... more

*9) $2.3 Trillion went MISSING from the Pentagon before **September 11, 2001** 
*The day before the terror attacks of 9/11/2001, Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon could not track how 25% of its entire budget is spent ... more* 
**
 Our defense system  the most expensive on Earth  was useless, yet those responsible were not held accountable 
*Have those responsible for the failure to detect, prevent, or even respond appropriately at the time to the attacks been fired, hauled into court, charged with anything, fined, or otherwise inconvenienced? No ... more *

**7) Foreknowledge: Relevant intelligence was ignored and insiders were warned 
*Alleged insider trading and other stock market action prior to 9/11 is another reason to suspect foreknowledge of the attacks. This topic was reported in the major media briefly and then fell off the mainstream radar. Still another reason for suspicion is that many among the power elite were apparently warned shortly before 9/11 not to fly on that date. 

*6) President Bush continued reading The Pet Goat to children instead of being whisked to safety or doing his job 
*There are at least two issues here: first, Bush was at a publicly-scheduled event and thus attackers could easily have known his location. One would have expected the Secret Service to have immediately removed the President to safety upon learning that the nation was under attack. 

The second reason for listing this point is subjective. Watch the video of Bush in the minutes after he is told that an attack is in progress
* 
**5) Passports fluttering down from the WTC 
*All by itself, this is enough to prove  beyond anything I would consider reasonable doubt  that we are not getting an honest and accurate accounting of the day's events. * 

**4) Huge airliner vanishes at Pentagon; no bodies, no debris to speak of  no plane! 
*In the meantime, it is worth knowing that several on-the-scene observers saw the same thing YOU see in the photos and video: basically, nothing  no airliner or any suggestion that an airliner had been there. You can read Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski's report of her experience at the Pentagon right after the impact

*3) FBI immediately confiscated video of Pentagon event
*Why on Earth was video from a gas station across from the Pentagon taken into custody and kept from the pubic, and for that matter how did the FBI manage to get to the gas station "within minutes" after the impact? 

*2) Obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence 
*If there is one thing even a child knows about crime scenes, it is that *you don't mess with the evidence*.
Yet most of the steel in the collapsed World Trade Center buildings was quickly sold off for scrap 
* 
**1) Use of 9/11 to enable tyranny *
Covert attacks on one's homeland or on one's military abroad  blamed on foreigners or other enemies  have been used repeatedly in history to rally citizen support for war and tyranny. These are called false flag attacks.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-truth-signatories-stand-by-call-for-new-investigation.html9/11 Truth Signatories Stand By Call For New Investigation 
Despite a concerted effort on behalf of the establishment media to portray 9/11 truth as a taboo subject in light of the resignation of Van Jones, a Salon.com investigation has found that the vast majority of original signatories to a petition calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 stand by their word.
Van Jones probably didn't realize he would make it to the "good ole boys" club when he signed that petition. Can't be part of the club and want a real investigation ... no sir.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

Here's another video of a Canadian news show probing whether or not 911 was an inside job. This is the kind of show you will never see on corporate news here in the states ...
Investigating 911 Conspiracy Theory on Yahoo
You got to hand it to these other countries news coverage of this event.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:lXWYKA0qSwYJ:www.militarynewbie.com/pubs/FM%25205-250%2520Explosives%2520And%2520Demolitions%2520Manual.pdf+fm+5-250&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk≷=usUnited States Military Field Manual FM 5-250; Explosives and Demolitions: Using thermite to bring down vertical structures, standard operating procedure since 1992; Section 3-6 (d) search thermite.


----------



## Iron Lion Zion (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> thats why i said "...............................i'll wait................"


Flight 93. Sorry for making you wait, had school then work.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

The Asian Times has 50 questions concerning 911 ... are we seeing a pattern here from other countries?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.htmlFifty questions on 9/11 
1) How come dead or not dead Osama bin Laden has not been formally indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as responsible for 9/11?

2) How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours - without even a crime scene investigation? 

4) How come eight names on the "original" FBI list happened to be found alive and living in different countries? 

7) How could Mohammed Atta's passport have been magically found buried among the Word Trade Center (WTC)'s debris when not a single flight recorder was found? 

10) Why the secretary of the US Air Force James Roche did not try to intercept both planes hitting the WTC (only seven minutes away from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey) as well as the Pentagon (only 10 minutes away from McGuire)? Roche had no less than 75 minutes to respond to the plane hitting the Pentagon

17) Why did combat jet fighters of the 305th Air Wing, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey not intercept the second hijacked plane hitting the WTC, when they could have done it within seven minutes?

20) How come a substantial number of witnesses did swear seeing and hearing multiple explosions in both towers of the WTC? 

22) According to Frank de Martini, WTC's construction manager, "We designed the building to resist the impact of one or more jetliners." The second plane nearly missed tower 1; most of the fuel burned in an explosion outside the tower. Yet this tower collapsed first, long before tower 2 that was "perforated" by the first hit. Jet fuel burned up fast - and by far did not reach the 2000-degree heat necessary to hurt the six tubular steel columns in the center of the tower - designed specifically to keep the towers from collapsing even if hit by a Boeing 707. A Boeing 707 used to carry more fuel than the Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 that actually hit the towers.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> Flight 93. Sorry for making you wait, had school then work.


i am VERY sorry if i am making a mistake...... but..... I really do not believe you at all. That would mean you are the one and only recorded person to "know someone" on flight 93...........? There was no flight 93 !!! none..... 
Why would you sit and lie about a death ? 
It is now *obvious* you are just posting to piss others off. 



by the way, if you call CNN or BBC they will PAY for an interview with your "friend"
no need in jumpin in this thread if you already have the "proof" ??


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> Flight 93. Sorry for making you wait, had school then work.


You went to school , work, and came home in an hour ??


----------



## Iron Lion Zion (Sep 11, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Wow dude I have never seen a post that was so FACTUALLY inaccurate on this forum to date.
> 
> You have the wrong planes, the wrong fuel load, the wrong fuel type, your understanding of thermite is NON EXISTENT. you understand nothing being presented here because you refuse to read any of the evidence shown. IE you do not think for yourself because you are completely close minded.
> 
> ...


On a side note, if I have offended anyone by attacking their intelligence, I apologize. I do not mean to insult you as a person, but obviously this is a subject that I am emotionally invested in because of my friend and therefore can get pretty heated regarding the subject.

Keep em coming!


----------



## Iron Lion Zion (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> You went to school , work, and came home in an hour ??


I meant for not responding to everyone... school in the morning, came home for lunch, responded to you, went to work at 2:30 - it was slow, so I got off early after only 2.5 hours at 5:15ish.


----------



## adam1212 (Sep 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> You went to school , work, and came home in an hour ??


that sounds like the same fishy timeline on sep 11th...betcha he was in on it too


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 11, 2009)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shake.htmlVideo Evidence of an Explosion at the Base of WTC 1
9/11 news broadcast: "...the second tower, the only one that was standing, tower number one ... we saw some kind of explosion, a lot of smoke come out of the top of the tower and then it collapsed down onto the streets below, much like we saw the first tower just about a half hour ago."


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.htmlHani Hanjour - 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire
"...and this is the part which is confounding me ... how do you as the terrorist have the level of sophistication to take over the controls of a sophisticated airliner jet plane to be able to fly accurately into targets like hitting dead center into the Pentagon which is a low building?"


[youtube]ZyKR2-A0KPU&eurl[/youtube]


http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d10-Who-are-911-Truthers-What-is-the-911-Truth-Movementgreat intro article to share: Who are 9/11 Truthers? What is the 9/11 Truth Movement?
Van Jones, an advisor to President Obama signed a 9/11 Truth petition. Charlie Sheen challenges President Obama for a 20-minute discussion for 9/11 Truth. Who are these people? What is their evidence? What do they want? 
As a teacher of high school US History courses, I attempted to professionally address this question with an appropriate classroom lesson. BTW, this issue is among the top few historical questions that my high school students want answered after examining information through Internet surfing.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtcsmoke.htmlThe Fires in the WTC Wreckage Were Not Conventional Fires
Conventional fires burning under tons of rubble would be oxygen starved, therefore the smoke produced would be black, not white. Also, large amounts of soot would have been produced in five days, therefore the temperatures of the oxygen starved fires should have been significantly lower.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usaf_911.htmlWar Games: The Key to a 9/11 USAF Stand Down
There was a young man who came in and said to the vice president "The plane [Flight 77] is 50 miles out" [from Washington], "The plane is 30 miles out", and when it got down to "The plane is 10 miles out" the young man also said to the vice president "Do the orders still stand?", and the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"
It is obvious the above orders did not involve defending Washington.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_renovations.htmlThe Pentagon Renovations Completed on 9/11/2001
American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.
The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> On a side note, if I have offended anyone by attacking their intelligence, I apologize. I do not mean to insult you as a person, but obviously this is a subject that I am emotionally invested in because of my friend and therefore can get pretty heated regarding the subject.
> 
> Keep em coming!



I have actually USED thermite, it has an extremely high ignition temperature, you can pour gasoline on it and light er up and it will NOT ignite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite read read read, it proves all of your points wrong, then go watch some vids of people playing with thermite and tell me you see an "Explosion".
[youtube]WrCWLpRc1yM[/youtube]

5 pounds to get through a car body LOL, wow in the Marines one 2 pound thermite grenade will not only burn through a car body, but also all the way through the engine block and in less than 30 seconds. How do I know this? I have done it!

How you got your understanding of thermite just boggles me, its nothing like you report it to be.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Iron Lion Zion said:


> Keep em coming!


They are coming , you just seem to only want to respond to the weaker one here....... ME .

If you get so mad about your friends loss then why not get mad at me for calling you a liar .

where did u get your thermite info ?
what happens when fire and gasoline meet?
what if the tanks were holding 100,000 gal. ?


Iron Lion Zion said:


> "even 8 year olds who play Jenga know if you fuck with the bottom of the tower it goes down


 of course it goes down..... right into its own footprint?  
Where did u get ANY of your info ?

just answer the questions and quit playin games on this SERIOUS thread.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 11, 2009)

So we get that link to the investigation panel members statements about it being false?

It may have been posted, and I just missed it.


----------



## Red rhino grower (Sep 11, 2009)

I think bush is an idiot but to say he would set the US up for an attack is just plain crazy


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 11, 2009)

Red rhino grower said:


> I think bush is an idiot but to say he would set the US up for an attack is just plain crazy


I didnt say bush did it....AT ALL. But yes he was involved somehow because he was president at the time. He could not of carried that one out by himself.
What is crazy is folks who believe that the buildings were brought down from plane impacts........... Thats more then crazy, that is plain ignorance. by the way do you have your own opinion on this matter besides bush is an idiot and didnt do it ???? 
Do you really believe the planes killed all those folks ?


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 14, 2009)

Red rhino grower said:


> I think bush is an idiot but to say he would set the US up for an attack is just plain crazy


No one is claiming bush was a lone attacker ... he may not have been in on the planning part ... but it is certain he knew about it. We won't know for sure what really happen that day until we have a full independent investigation. That's the point of all of this.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 14, 2009)

I like this guy .... check it ...
[youtube]08W7W9xJnZo[/youtube]


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 14, 2009)

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/fox-news-supports-death-threats-on-scholars-for-911-truth-activistFOX News Supports Death Threats on Scholars for 9/11 Truth Activist 
It has come to my attention that one of your announcers, Bill OReilly, has stated on national television that he would like to see me murdered and thrown into Boston Harbor.
Since I get so many email death threats I cant keep track of them
(among the 10% of my 9/11-related emails that are negative) this is a
pretty inflammatory thing to say. If anything were to happen to me, Fox
News would find itself facing the mother of all lawsuits, and my family
might very well end up in control of the Murdoch fortune.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
See PEW Research poll below which shows public trust of corporate media at an all-time low.


Now that would be interesting to see such a lawsuit.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 15, 2009)

Charlie Sheen on Alex Jones right now. 

http://www.infowars.com/

click the link on the middle-right side of page..
listen in !


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 15, 2009)

thanks for the link GR !!!


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 17, 2009)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_"In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation."


_[/FONT]Anyone know who said this? Its a quiz.


----------



## nuera59 (Sep 17, 2009)

inside job, 100%.
Most people think only two towers fell 911, why?
Building 7 is never mentioned. Its a controlled demo. 
PULL IT.


----------



## dababydroman (Sep 17, 2009)

its already been proved impossible..


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 17, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_"In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
> 
> 
> _[/FONT]Anyone know who said this? Its a quiz.


No who said it ?


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 17, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> No who said it ?



Hitler, Mein Kampf


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 20, 2009)

dababydroman said:


> its already been proved impossible..


Exactly what has been proved impossible?



NoDrama said:


> Hitler, Mein Kampf


Notice how history keeps repeating itself. I can't believe how many time people are willing to fall for the same bullshit.

Here are news updates ...
Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff Gets Pounded With 9/11 Questions By C-SPAN Callers
[youtube]KT5JZVUKPrs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
I wouldn't call it getting pounding ... but there were 3 calls, notice how Chertoff avoided the questions and started making shit up.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#reaction_rateExplosives Found In World Trade Center Dust
Whereas a cup of conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a cars engine block,the same quantity of nano-thermite will blow the car apart.
While thermite is classed as an incendiary nano-thermite actually detonates with a force and speed equivalent to TNT!


Charlie Sheen 911 Rant Is Pure Ego
Another hysterical bashing, long on insults, devoid of any actual facts, written by an author who has apparently been spared the ravages of intelligence.


Here's a follow up on the Barry Jennings Story ... 

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven and the Mysterious death of Barry Jennings
from Inside WTC 7: Besides ignoring these and other reports of explosions made by people outside Building 7, NIST distorted the testimony of two highly credible men who were inside: Michael Hess, who was New York Citys corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 21, 2009)

Super patriots WAC are back with a great video ... if you like hip hop you will love the music. Check it ...
The 2nd American Revolution - 9/11 Truth NYC 9-11-2009
[youtube]Kf2C1zPLZSI[/youtube]

... and here is something interesting about Amy Goodman and Democracy Now ... I do wonder why she won't do a report ... there is definitely a story, but she is under corporate media control, so there is my answer.
[youtube]DXTlxT7gFGk&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21395 Amy Goodman challenged over her 9/11 gatekeeping
Rockers will like the music in this one.
She opted to fall back on her textbook answer when dealing with questions about 9/11 by saying she thinks "it needs to be investigated, you know, and we'll continue to look at the issue." Rothe-Kushel then reminded Goodman that it has been investigated and that it was time for her to do her job and have the investigators on her show. After the event, Rothe-Kushel asked David Goodman how best to reach his sister about 9/11 and he responded by saying, "I think you just did." However, almost 6 months later, there still has not been a single mention on Democracy Now of the investigative science and analysis of the 9/11 tragedy. So, Ms. Goodman will continue to be chased with questions about her silence on the seminal story of the semi-new century.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 21, 2009)

grow you make me want to have your babies


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 23, 2009)

Keenly said:


> grow you make me want to have your babies



Check out this commentary ... NYers won the right to put 911 on the ballot despite NY attempt to stop them.
The March for Answers
 The March for Answers is a not just a protest march against further suppression of NYC CAN in its battles with the City of New York City to get the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation on the November ballot.
In this context, think of the city as Mike Bloomberg, who just bought his third term as mayor despite New Yorkers voted twice to limit local elected officials to two terms. Term limits were extended by Bloomberg with a good twist of the arms of the City Council and pushed through. So much for the will of the people.
The Pandoras box of pollutants it released in the free-fall explosions of the Towers created the most potent toxic site, New York, and America have ever seen. Of course, urging these men and women to work round the clock helped destroy Americas largest crime-scene, clearing it in eight months, not the year and a half allotted for it, sending the metal to China, other debris to Staten Islands land fill.
Im talking about a million tons of atomized concrete, plastics, glass, asbestos, heavy metals, which is listed in my article, _9/11s second round of slaughter  A review of the health effects of 9/11, _A film by Heidi Dehncke-Fisher. If you havent read this article, you should. As the filmmaker pointed out the pollutants included . . .


Over 400 tons of asbestos, which once inhaled in any quantity cannot be expelled by the lungs


90,000 liters of jet fuel containing benzene, a carcinogen that suppresses the immune system and causes leukemia


Mercury from over 500,000 fluorescent lights that is toxic to the nervous system, and damaging especially to the kidneys


200,000 pounds of lead and cadmium from personal computers, toxic to the respiratory track, especially damaging to kidneys


Polycystic aromatic hydrocarbons that cause lung, laryngeal and throat cancers


130,000 gallons of transformer oil with PCBs, causing serious skin rashes and liver damage


Crystalline Silica from 420,000 tons of concrete, sheetrock and glass (tiny particulates that lodge in heart, causing ischemic heart disease) 
 

. . . and so on and on and on . . . 
 *Webmaster's Commentary:* 
I have a great deal of respect for all the 9-11 truth activists, but calling for a new investigation just gives the government another chance to lie to us, paid for by tax dollars.
I refuse to grant to the government the authority to tell me whether my conclusions about 9-11 are correct or not. I do not need them to tell me I am correct, and this government they will never ever admit error.
WE already know all we need to know. The government lied to the people about 9-11, just as they lied about Saddam's "nookular" bombs, just as they are lying now about Iran.
Calling for a new investigation is just a means to avoid the real issue, which is that the time has come for WE THE PEOPLE to decide what we are going to do about a government that lies to us about ... everything.
Are we going to fire the liars?
Or will you meekly bow down your heads and believe as you are ordered to believe?
One is the path of freedom.

The commentator makes a very valid point, the investigation must be independent and non-partisan. If it's like it was before we will get another white wash at tax payer expense. 
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2142707/20/2009 - AIA General Counsel meets with Richard Gage, AIA at the headquarters of the American Institute Of Architects in Washington DC.
On Monday, July 20, 2009, BGM followed Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on the final day of his visit to Washington, D.C.

This just in from youtube from NYCCAN

[youtube]WMucz6VjW34&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


... a very important flashback 

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.htmlFlashback: Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks
Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. 
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. 
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 23, 2009)

Anyone who thinks 911 was a conspiracy is simply an idiot. Popular Science went through the issue claim by claim and disproved every claim. Plus there is the issue of WTF happened to the missing planes and all the people who died. You think two major airlines would commit economic suicide because Bush asked them to - that's just dumb. Also, every air traffic controller in the world saw the event unfold in real time - can you say "duh!"

BTW, sky scrapers are built to very tight weight tolerances. Losing even 20%-30% of their structural integrity will bring them down. Contrast with the freeway overpass at I75 and 9 Mile road just N of Detroit that was brought down by a tanker truck fire recently. This overpass is meant to hold many times its own weight (far in excess of the WTC) and yet the burning fuel beneath it brought it down with no load on it. This is an overpass designed to hold tens of thousands of tons!!!

Really though - there is no legitimate argument here. 911 was exactly as portrayed - if you think otherwise you need psychological help.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 23, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Anyone who thinks 911 was a conspiracy is simply an idiot. Popular Science went through the issue claim by claim and disproved every claim. Plus there is the issue of WTF happened to the missing planes and all the people who died. You think two major airlines would commit economic suicide because Bush asked them to - that's just dumb. Also, every air traffic controller in the world saw the event unfold in real time - can you say "duh!"
> 
> BTW, sky scrapers are built to very tight weight tolerances. Losing even 20%-30% of their structural integrity will bring them down. Contrast with the freeway overpass at I75 and 9 Mile road just N of Detroit that was brought down by a tanker truck fire recently. This overpass is meant to hold many times its own weight (far in excess of the WTC) and yet the burning fuel beneath it brought it down with no load on it. This is an overpass designed to hold tens of thousands of tons!!!
> 
> Really though - there is no legitimate argument here. 911 was exactly as portrayed - if you think otherwise you need psychological help.


100% BS. Buildings built with in 20% weight tolerances huh? You obviously have not read much of the thread, we have already discussed how each floor was designed to hold 1000% ( 1 thousand) of the weight it actually does hold. Now perhaps your home was built with a 30% weight load tolerance, but this is big time building here that sways over 2 feet when its windy outside, which is approximately 10 times the force of a airliner plowing into it at 600 MPH.

You sir may very well be the idiot, not the truthers. Have you recently checked into professional help?

Popular Science had its ass handed to them by real engineers and scientists. Notice how they stay out of the argumant now a days, can't take that kind of heat you know?


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 24, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Anyone who thinks 911 was a conspiracy is simply an idiot.


Anyone that thinks buildings design to withstand several plane impacts and fire, can come crashing down in seconds is the real idiot.



RickWhite said:


> Popular Science went through the issue claim by claim and disproved every claim.


Like Drama stated PM was handed their ass on this, but perhaps you'd like to put up the "claim by claim" and lets see if they were disproved.



RickWhite said:


> Plus there is the issue of WTF happened to the missing planes and all the people who died.


Whether or not there were planes or no planes is up to a real investigation to find out ... not us.



RickWhite said:


> You think two major airlines would commit economic suicide because Bush asked them to - that's just dumb.


The airlines are not the issue ... what really happen that day is.



RickWhite said:


> Also, every air traffic controller in the world saw the event unfold in real time - can you say "duh!"


What does that have to do with finding out what really happen that day?



RickWhite said:


> BTW, sky scrapers are built to very tight weight tolerances. Losing even 20%-30% of their structural integrity will bring them down.


If that where the case then more skyscrapers would be crashing down in there own footprint in seconds ... yet the three WTC buildings are the ONLY skyscrapers that has ever happen to in the history of skyscrapers. So it's obvious you are blowing this shit out your ass.



RickWhite said:


> Contrast with the freeway overpass at I75 and 9 Mile road just N of Detroit that was brought down by a tanker truck fire recently. This overpass is meant to hold many times its own weight (far in excess of the WTC) and yet the burning fuel beneath it brought it down with no load on it. This is an overpass designed to hold tens of thousands of tons!!!


The freeway argument was proven bogus long ago in this thread.



RickWhite said:


> Really though - there is no legitimate argument here.


There are plenty of legitimate arguments ... it's not our problem that you are too  to see it.



RickWhite said:


> 911 was exactly as portrayed -


There is no evidence of that what so ever.



RickWhite said:


> if you think otherwise you need psychological help.


Like Drama said ... it's you who need the help.

Check it out folks ... of course this wouldn't fit in with rick fantasy.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue.

at some level of the government, at some point in timethere was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described . The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... We to this day dont know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 24, 2009)

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/09/top-down-demolition.htmlNew Video Shows that Demolitions are Sometimes Top-Down
One of the main arguments defenders of the official story have made against the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is that demolitions never start at the top of the building. In other words, they claim that demolitions always start at the bottom and proceed upwards.
However, a new video shows an example of a top-down demolition of another building:
[youtube]VZ1E2NPl-s8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 24, 2009)

still waiting for the link that shows members of the first 9/11 commission saying it was bullshit.

Doubt I'll see it though.

Edit: Saw that "article" above. It read like a book report to me...

Sure seemed like that's what it was...

I'd love to see an AP report, not some random no name website saying what a book is about.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 24, 2009)

looks like your asking someone to investigate for you? Sometimes when growrebel post something in RED it's a link! Look up Wayyy up...


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 24, 2009)

Hey, someone else said they saw that, so I asked for a link.

It was finally provided after weeks.

Sorry, the onus is on them to prove their side, not me.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 24, 2009)

My bad too, was trying to edit my post when I lost connection. I only seen it after I looked back up and clicked it. That book would probably be a very interesting read.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 24, 2009)

It's all good, my man.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 24, 2009)

9/11 Commission Members Doubt Official 9/11 Story
Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a national scandal,
In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.
Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements.
Nuff said
Here's another interesting article on the report ... it was written back in 2004 so I'm sure some things have changed or revealed since then.
[SIZE=+1]*The 911 Commission Report is Full of Holes*[/SIZE] 
The official 911 Report (7mb pdf) is so full of holes, all you need is common sense to see through their lies- and it doesnt take 585 pages to prove that this a cover-up... using their own document- and a few audio clips they forgot to investigate. (footnotes are pdf page # -not printed page)


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 24, 2009)

I have to just laugh at this point. Every so called "fact" you guys pull out of your ass has been disproved over and over again. No real scientists back the 911 conspiracy and nobody ever showed that anything in the book written by the popular science guys had a single flaw because it doesn't. Real scientists have explained over and over that all your theories are wrong. Your theories are just as ridiculous as denying the Holocaust or insisting the world is flat. Honestly, can you guys not see that there isn't a shred of evidence to back up these idiotic ideas and that all the so called facts you come up with are simply made up. Do everyone a favor and go get psychological help.

Really, you guys should be banned from this forum to maintain its integrity.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 24, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I have to just laugh at this point. Every so called "fact" you guys pull out of your ass has been disproved over and over again. No real scientists back the 911 conspiracy and nobody ever showed that anything in the book written by the popular science guys had a single flaw because it doesn't. Real scientists have explained over and over that all your theories are wrong. Your theories are just as ridiculous as denying the Holocaust or insisting the world is flat. Honestly, can you guys not see that there isn't a shred of evidence to back up these idiotic ideas and that all the so called facts you come up with are simply made up. Do everyone a favor and go get psychological help.
> 
> Really, you guys should be banned from this forum to maintain its integrity.



LOL. Yep we take everything you say at face value which is exactly zero, since you provide NOTHING to substantiate your claims we always win the argument. How many arguments are you going to lose before you stop posting? You can write whatever you want, but if you bring nothing to the table then well your just letting words fall out of your mouth. 

Teh Win!!


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 24, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I have to just laugh at this point.


Apparently that's all you can do. It's obvious you can't dispute any of the evidence posted in this thread, otherwise you would have.



RickWhite said:


> Every so called "fact" you guys pull out of your ass has been disproved over and over again.


Yeah you keep "saying" that, but I don't see you bringing up anything specific and showing how it was disproved ...want to know why? ... because you can't.



RickWhite said:


> No real scientists back the 911 conspiracy


Ah ... there are several ... and their statements and names have been posted in this thread.



RickWhite said:


> and nobody ever showed that anything in the book written by the popular science guys had a single flaw because it doesn't.


Wrong again ... and there are links in this thread proving so.



RickWhite said:


> Real scientists have explained over and over that all your theories are wrong.


Such as?



RickWhite said:


> Your theories are just as ridiculous as denying the Holocaust or insisting the world is flat.


There is nothing ridiculous about skyscrapers falling into their own footprint in a few seconds, when it's a scientific fact what happen was physically impossible ... nor are any of the other unanswered questions about that day which has also been posted in this thread ridiculous.



RickWhite said:


> Honestly, can you guys not see that there isn't a shred of evidence to back up these idiotic ideas


Oh yeah, you are right ... if you are referring to the government's conspiracy theory ... 



RickWhite said:


> and that all the so called facts you come up with are simply made up.


such as?



RickWhite said:


> Do everyone a favor and go get psychological help.


You need to follow your own advice if you buy the government's story ... fortunately you are a minority.



RickWhite said:


> Really, you guys should be banned from this forum to maintain its integrity.


For asking questions? For wanting to know what really happened on 911? How long have you hated America?


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 24, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> LOL. Yep we take everything you say at face value which is exactly zero, since you provide NOTHING to substantiate your claims we always win the argument. How many arguments are you going to lose before you stop posting? You can write whatever you want, but if you bring nothing to the table then well your just letting words fall out of your mouth.
> 
> Teh Win!!



LOL, yeah, that was pretty much total pwnage. sometimes I don't know whether to kiss you, slap you, or both. This time is different.

<3

This is a conspiracy "theory" I can get behind.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 25, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I have to just laugh at this point. Every so called "fact" you guys pull out of your ass has been disproved over and over again. No real scientists back the 911 conspiracy and nobody ever showed that anything in the book written by the popular science guys had a single flaw because it doesn't. Real scientists have explained over and over that all your theories are wrong. Your theories are just as ridiculous as denying the Holocaust or insisting the world is flat. Honestly, can you guys not see that there isn't a shred of evidence to back up these idiotic ideas and that all the so called facts you come up with are simply made up. Do everyone a favor and go get psychological help.
> 
> Really, you guys should be banned from this forum to maintain its integrity.



 looks like the *ONLY *research you have done is on this thread.... Why dont YOU go tell the 700 REAL scientist, architect's , eye witness's ECT..... That they are stupid or "need help" . by the way I have *NEVER *mentioned a "theory"
ONLY FACTS. and if u believe the facts aint real then u are the theorist. 
*You said our facts have been proven wrong ? WHERE, WHO AND WHEN ????.........................................................
...............................................................
*still waiting ?
The official report says there were *NO* explosives in wtc7 but yet multiple people seen and heard the explosions and when barry jennings (stuck in building 7 because of explosion), who along with michael hess ,stated on 9/11/01 ,after they were rescued , that there were explosions in wtc 7 and that they were blown from the 6th floor to the 8th floor, and trapped inside the building for hours, that supossedly had no explosives inside it????? In Aug 08 Jennings decided to release his story, He asked that the story not be released, but a few weeks later bbc realesed the story. In Aug of 08 they also realesed the NIST report and out of no where 2 days before the NIST report was to be released, the healthy 53 year old jennings was reported dead and still to this day they have not released a cause of death?????????? wtf then michael hess ,who made the same statement on 9/11, said after the bbc release of the jennings story, that he never said anything about explosions in wtc 7???? huh, sounds like hess was scared for his life so he changed his story up. Thats just one example, i could sit here all day and throw *FACTS *at you, but you will just say its a made up youtube storys so why are *YOU *even here ?What is your argument ???? 

PLEASE i am begging you to PROVE ANYTHING we have said on this ENTIRE thread to be false..................................................
...................................................
.................................
................and still waiting.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 25, 2009)

ya know, i was watching the 911 chronicles again the other day



one of the first responding firefighters mentioned he and several other firefighters, while running out of the building from explosions (yeah thats right, explosions with fireballs coming DOWN the elevator)


they stumbled across a body in a closet


thats kind of fishy

"why is there a body in the closet" they asked



my best guess would be the man saw something he shouldnt have or he asked too many questions


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 25, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> removed


You have time to post ALL this AND start a thread *just because YOU disagree. *
Is it THAT hard to take a few minutes outta your time to "disprove" the *FACTS *that we have presented ? From what *you *say it should be very easy since its been done a million times........? 
PLEASE i am begging you! I want to see the "million disproves" you talk about with NO/ZERO evidence ?? What do you believe ? Even the commission itself said they were wrong? 
All you have to do to shut us up is show us some of this "disproof" you speak of.

By the way i have more REAL friends then you'll ever know BUT that dont mean i cant take time outta my day to confront this VERY important issue that you apparently have NO IDEA ABOUT.
go look at my record , i am a very useful person to this website (not just the politic section ALL the way at the bottom)


----------



## Keenly (Sep 25, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> removed



every statement made in this post is false, sorry, but just because you didnt do your research, citing false claims, and refusing to provide proof, does not a credible statement make


just leave the thread, you have no counterpoints, your just trolling


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 25, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Let me guess, you guys have no friends and live in your mother's basement - am I close?


Let me guess ... you can't dispute any of the evidence in this thread so you resort to ridicule ... I know I'm close.



RickWhite said:


> EVER SINGLE 911 CONSPIRACY ISSUE HAS BEEN DISPROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT DOZENS OF TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You keep stating that yet you continue to offer nothing to back your uneducated opinion.



RickWhite said:


> If you guys are too stupid or mentally ill


You are the one that is stupid and mentally ill for buying the government's bullshit story.kiss-ass



RickWhite said:


> to get this through your head there is nothing anyone can say to you.


There is nothing to say since the evidence is clear.



RickWhite said:


> There is not and never has been A SINGLE SHRED of evidence that there was a conspiracy.


This thread proves you are blowing shit out your ass.




RickWhite said:


> There is not a SINGLE LEGITIMATE SCIENTIST that supports your theories.


There are several that proved the theory to be correct.



RickWhite said:


> EVERY PIECE OF "EVIDENCE" YOU PRODUCE IS 100% FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You saying it's false is not proof that it is.



RickWhite said:


> I can prove
> this


It's pretty obvious you can't otherwise you would have long ago.



RickWhite said:


> but it has already done and you guys are to fucking stupid to get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are the one that is stupid ...hell you can't back any of the bullshit you have  thus far



RickWhite said:


> The only argument you guys have been able to come up with is simple contradiction and nay saying without a shred of evidence


simply continuing to blow shit out your ass.



RickWhite said:


> to back up anything you say. Oh, in your mind you have evidence but to every reasonable person on Earth your "evidence" only makes sense to you.


Those "reasonable" people you speak of are a minority ... I wonder why?



RickWhite said:


> Seriously, this is like trying to prove that the Earth is round to a bunch of guys who just say that all the proof is wrong.


You are the one that is disregarding science and facts not us.



RickWhite said:


> At this point I have to ask a moderator to please step in here and ban these idiots to maintain the integrity of the forum.


You have a problem with asking questions and wanting answers? Why do you hate America?



RickWhite said:


> I am done with you morons - go see a shrink!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So far the only moron I see is you ... you have brought nothing to the debate to prove otherwise. Take your own advice ... you need it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 25, 2009)

This is a Canadian web site with about 47 different 911 films ... more than you will ever be able to watch or care to watch! But for the record ... here it is ... 
Canada Wants The Truth About 911


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 25, 2009)

He won't watch them, he won't look at any evidence or any claims because he is too scared. He is scared he might find that the world does not revolve around him, he is scared that he will find something that will tell him that it really was a conspiracy and that maybe just maybe the government and politicians just really could tell a lie. Rick White is afraid to debate the issues because he knows for certain that he cannot refute the claims, because he knows that deep inside his soul he will find the truth and that is really the source of all his fears.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 25, 2009)

i can't believe you ALL reported him for that post.


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 25, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i can't believe you ALL reported him for that post.



Really? that surprises you? I just did it to see if you'd come... I kind of missed you today


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 25, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Really? that surprises you? I just did it to see if you'd come... I kind of missed you today


told ya i had some trimming to do. pretty much gonna be trimming everyday for a few weeks now. 

you weren't the only one.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 25, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> told ya i had some trimming to do. pretty much gonna be trimming everyday for a few weeks now.
> 
> you weren't the only one.


Trimming makes my butt go numb because I tend to sit for so long. Do you entertain yourself in any way while trimming? or are you all "Business"?


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 26, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Trimming makes my butt go numb because I tend to sit for so long. Do you entertain yourself in any way while trimming? or are you all "Business"?



i take a lot of breaks. i come in and read this thread whenever i need a good laugh.


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Sep 26, 2009)

9/11 Commission Members Doubt Official 9/11 Story
Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a &#8220;national scandal&#8221;,
In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.
Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements.
Nuff said
Here's another interesting article on the report ... it was written back in 2004 so I'm sure some things have changed or revealed since then.
[SIZE=+1]*The 911 Commission Report is Full of Holes*[/SIZE] 
The official 911 Report (7mb pdf) is so full of holes, all you need is common sense to see through their lies- and it doesn&#8217;t take 585 pages to prove that this a cover-up... using their own document- and a few audio clips they &#8217;forgot&#8217; to investigate. (footnotes are pdf page # -not printed page)


So I read the first link regarding the 9/11 commission report member, which uses a transcript from a PBS interview...

In the transcript, the senator discusses the non coordination of the intelligence community prior to 9/11, stated Al Qaeda did it(9/11), mentioned how he thought the commission report was delayed on purpose because the white house didn't want people to find out they didn't coordinate, and when pressed for proof could only say "just look, it's obvious!"

Nowhere did he say the US government perpetrated 9/11.

I'm not even going to bother with the second link regarding it.

Just another conspiracy site rehashing the same old same old.


----------



## Katatawnic (Sep 26, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i come in and read this thread whenever i need a good laugh.


So do I.


----------



## JimmyPot (Sep 26, 2009)

People who smoke pot and vote right wing conservative are a special kind of brain washed idiot who maybe the most blind or dumb type of person in the United states.


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 26, 2009)

I'm not posting proof because this issue has already been proved ad-infinitum and you simply dismiss the proof as false. You can't prove something to people unwilling to accept irrefutable proof. You are like a bunch of children on the playground saying "I know you are but what am I."

Anyway, I can see that all you guys are after is attention and I'm not giving you any more of mine. Maybe Big foot, the Loch Ness Monster and the tooth fairy will join in the conversation and you can also deny the Holocaust and discuss how the moon landing was staged and the Earth is flat.

Have fun guys I'm out of here.


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 26, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I'm not posting proof because this issue has already been proved ad-infinitum and you simply dismiss the proof as false. You can't prove something to people unwilling to accept irrefutable proof. You are like a bunch of children on the playground saying "I know you are but what am I."
> 
> Anyway, I can see that all you guys are after is attention and I'm not giving you any more of mine. Maybe Big foot, the Loch Ness Monster and the tooth fairy will join in the conversation and you can also deny the Holocaust and discuss how the moon landing was staged and the Earth is flat.
> 
> Have fun guys I'm out of here.



In other words, he still can't produce any of this "irrefutable" proof (that's been refuted over and over.. hmmmm, how is that "irrefutable, again? Right! It isn't.) so he's just going to say one more time that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

And to drive his point home about how crazy we all are, he compares this to the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, etc.

Well, guess what Rick, there IS a tooth fairy (it's your mom) and an easter bunny (also your mom). So.... there.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 26, 2009)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> So I read the first link regarding the 9/11 commission report member, which uses a transcript from a PBS interview...
> 
> In the transcript, the senator discusses the non coordination of the intelligence community prior to 9/11, stated Al Qaeda did it(9/11), mentioned how he thought the commission report was delayed on purpose because the white house didn't want people to find out they didn't coordinate, and when pressed for proof could only say "just look, it's obvious!"
> 
> ...


When and where did I state that the commissioners said the US perpetrated 911?
I presented proof they doubt their own report nothing more. Learn to read.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 26, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Anyway, I can see that all you guys are after is attention and I'm not giving you any more of mine. Maybe Big foot, the Loch Ness Monster and the tooth fairy will join in the conversation and you can also deny the Holocaust and discuss how the moon landing was staged and the Earth is flat.
> 
> Have fun guys I'm out of here.


Yawn ... still nothing I see ... why am I not surprised?


----------



## SlikWiLL13 (Sep 26, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> you can also deny the Holocaust and discuss how the moon landing was staged and the Earth is flat.


C'mon, everybody knows the holocaust was fake.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 26, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I'm not posting proof because this issue has already been proved ad-infinitum and you simply dismiss the proof as false. You can't prove something to people unwilling to accept irrefutable proof. You are like a bunch of children on the playground saying "I know you are but what am I."
> 
> Anyway, I can see that all you guys are after is attention and I'm not giving you any more of mine. Maybe Big foot, the Loch Ness Monster and the tooth fairy will join in the conversation and you can also deny the Holocaust and discuss how the moon landing was staged and the Earth is flat.
> 
> Have fun guys I'm out of here.



false? where is this proof that you have? the internet is a big place, SHOW us your proof.... we have been begging you to see proof, but we are not as gullible as the mormans (south park joke not to be taken too seriously)

now your throwing beliefs on us that we dont even have

sorry, 9/11 was an inside job, just put my bumper sticker on yesterday


and to the poster on the top of this page


oh your little article doesnt say the gov did it?

at the very least it proves they lied to us about the murder of almost 3k americans on our own soil in order to use it as leverage against us to go to war, as well as improve the funding for and establish even more of a rightless, police state where the government rules all


----------



## Keenly (Sep 26, 2009)

Rick if you can explain rationally, logically, and reasonably, how WTC building 7 went down, ill never post again


im waiting


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 26, 2009)

God Bless the people of NYC that care about what really happen that day. Their struggle continues, the city is doing all they can to stop a referendum to have a vote for a real investigation into 911. It is my understanding that NYC has this legal right to call for a new investigation. The coming days will be telling.

http://www.nyccan.org/New Yorkers battle for 9-11 truth.
 80,000 New Yorkers have signed the petition.
As with every other NYC ballot initiative, the City of New York is denying the will of its people to vote on the issues it considers most important.
NYC CAN responded by filing suit, and on September 9 the City conceded NYC CAN did in fact submit enough valid signatures to put the referendum before the voters. Now NYC CAN is battling to prove the petition is legally valid. On September 28, the referee will report on the petition's legality, and a final determination will be made in the days that follow.




[youtube]O6H3ZQudZG0[/youtube]
Interview with 9/11 family member Jane Pollicino, who lost her husband Steve Pollicino in 2001.
She is courageously speaking out in favor of a new 9/11 inevstigation,spurred by the NYC CAN movement (http://nyccan.org )in New York. On the 27th of September, Join NYC CAN and thousands of New Yorkers as they converge on the streets of New York City to demand a new impartial investigation into 9/11.
She is right about all American should have a say in this not just NYC, but I think it has something to do with the crime taking place there so it is up to the people of the city.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 28, 2009)

[youtube]VKFiGfW6aGY[/youtube]

On Monday, July 20, 2009, BGM followed Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on the final day of his visit to Washington, D.C.

The final stop was the White House where Gage, with Slesinger, laid an AE911Truth banner on the sidewalk and addressed the tourists gathered there. Gage got into a heated but cordial debate with a man who identified himself as Kevin, a "reformed truther" and the former "debunking director" on the JREF Forum.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 28, 2009)

you cant "debunk" (stupid word) physics... but he gets credit for trying his hardest

OH MY GOD

upon finishing the video, i am amazed to see no one got pissed off, irate , or rude


----------



## West Coast Medicine (Sep 28, 2009)

I saw this in the news and thought it related. 

Attorney: Oklahoma City bomb tapes appear edited
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/ap_on_re_us/us_oklahoma_bombing_video/print

A few excerpts from the story:

"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995"

Jesse Trentadue (the attorney) alleges guards mistook his brother for one (a bombing suspect) and beat him to death during an interrogation. The official cause of Kenneth Trentadue's death is listed as suicide, but his body had 41 wounds and bruises that Jesse Trentadue believes could have come only from a beating.

Really........

For 14 years I've been wondering how 2 guys, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols obtained and mixed 4,000 pounds of fertilizer and fuel-oil used in that bombing.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 28, 2009)

West Coast Medicine said:


> For 14 years I've been wondering how 2 guys, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols obtained and mixed 4,000 pounds of fertilizer and fuel-oil used in that bombing.


Diesel and ordinary Nitrogen fertilizer, so basically a gas station and the nearest Wal-Mart garden center. You do need something to light it all off with though, Blasting cap, det cord, dynamite, C4, etc etc which is the hard part.


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 28, 2009)

I was listening to a man who demolishes skyscrapers for a living. He said that in order to implode those buildings it would require the building to be cordoned off for months while the project took place. This project would have taken dozens of workers who would need to open the walls, place shape charges in all the beams and run the detonation wires. This man explained that such an undertaking is a huge project and could not possibly be done covertly as the project would involve hundreds of man hours. Other demolition experts have corroborated this.

So how did they allegedly sneak these charges into the building? Was it magic?


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 28, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I was listening to a man who demolishes skyscrapers for a living. He said that in order to implode those buildings it would require the building to be cordoned off for months while the project took place. This project would have taken dozens of workers who would need to open the walls, place shape charges in all the beams and run the detonation wires. This man explained that such an undertaking is a huge project and could not possibly be done covertly as the project would involve hundreds of man hours. Other demolition experts have corroborated this.
> 
> So how did they allegedly sneak these charges into the building? Was it magic?



what about the hundreds of other demo experts that think different?

"Was it magic?" <-------- i would like to know how it happened *too*, thats why we want a REAL investigation ... Thats all we want ....nothing more.... no crazy theory's, no crazy alien type shit , just a simple investigation .


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 28, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> just a simple investigation .


A legit one at that...

*Columbia Space Shuttle Investigation Cost $175 Million. 
*

*Challenger Investigation Cost $100 Million.*

* 9/11 Investigation Only Got $15 Million*


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 28, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> A legit one at that...
> 
> *Columbia Space Shuttle Investigation Cost $175 Million.
> *
> ...




maybe because it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it all out.


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> maybe because it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it all out.



LOL, that was a good one.

I was watching an interview with some people who worked in the WTC complex before the attacks. They said a few weeks prior, the buildings had been closed for "work" to be done (can't remember the exact work, but there were 2 empty floors that were being renovated in some way). They suspected it was these "work crews" who were placing the charges later used to bring the buildings down.

When you consider that the bomb dogs who usually were stationed at the WTC had been called off several weeks prior to the attacks (around the same time the renovation "work" began), it seems plausible that the charges could have been set WELL in advance and gone unnoticed until 9/11.

I'll have to see if I can dig up those videos.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 29, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> A legit one at that...
> 
> *Columbia Space Shuttle Investigation Cost $175 Million.
> *
> ...


That makes me sick ............. what the fuck has the challenger and space shit have to do with real life? thats why the fuckin banks are broke, cause of lil things like that. When is china Ever gonna stop loaning us money for this trash ?? we have spent billions and lost millions of people just from one simple "false flag" 

MONEY=


wb


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> That makes me sick ............. what the fuck has the challenger and space shit have to do with real life? thats why the fuckin banks are broke, cause of lil things like that. When is china Ever gonna stop loaning us money for this trash ?? we have spent billions and lost millions of people just from one simple "false flag"
> 
> MONEY=
> 
> ...



you think the space program is BS?


----------



## redivider (Sep 29, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> A legit one at that...
> 
> *Columbia Space Shuttle Investigation Cost $175 Million.
> *
> ...


you forgot clinton's impeachment cost. 

"...The new expenditures push the cost of the independent counsel's 4 1/2-year inquiry of the president and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to $39.2 million. Starr was appointed to continue the investigation of the Clinton's Whitewater land deal. The probe was expanded in January 1998 to include the Lewinsky matter. ..."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/

cheaters could've done it for free....


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 29, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> what about the hundreds of other demo experts that think different?
> 
> "Was it magic?" <-------- i would like to know how it happened *too*, thats why we want a REAL investigation ... Thats all we want ....nothing more.... no crazy theory's, no crazy alien type shit , just a simple investigation .


Name one person who does building demolition for a living who thinks differently.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2009)

rust + aluminum 


[youtube]tx9EvkikqcM[/youtube]



[youtube]k-ckechIqW0[/youtube]





just saw it on Attack of the Show


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 29, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I was listening to a man who demolishes skyscrapers for a living. He said that in order to implode those buildings it would require the building to be cordoned off for months while the project took place. This project would have taken dozens of workers who would need to open the walls, place shape charges in all the beams and run the detonation wires. This man explained that such an undertaking is a huge project and could not possibly be done covertly as the project would involve hundreds of man hours. Other demolition experts have corroborated this.
> 
> So how did they allegedly sneak these charges into the building? Was it magic?


Obviously it was no ordinary demolish so they are not going to do what all demolition company normally do. The fact that unreacted thermite was found in the dust leaves no doubt those building were demo ... exactly how they did it would be reveal with a real investigation. That's why so many are demanding one. I posted way back in post 1290 Kevin Ryan essay about WTC access. So this has already been discussed.

Oh and didn't you say you was through with this thread?


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 29, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Name one person who does building demolition for a living who thinks differently.


Are u just tryin to play games now? Do you really wanna dispute this (with evidence) like normal people ? cause i am not going to argue like kids about this.

"According to the analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which  combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building  is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition."

i can go on and on with people like that ALL day ............ NOW can you find me one SINGLE person who does demo for a living to say that wtc 7 was *not* demo*?* that wont happen....... a REAL demo man that watches that building fall KNOWS that was demo (no questions)


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you think the space program is BS?


YES i do........... it dont help us in NO WAY AT ALL, and NEVER WILL .......... (but that is MY own opinion)


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 29, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> Are u just tryin to play games now? Do you really wanna dispute this (with evidence) like normal people ? cause i am not going to argue like kids about this.
> 
> "According to the analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which  combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building  is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition."
> 
> i can go on and on with people like that ALL day ............ NOW can you find me one SINGLE person who does demo for a living to say that wtc 7 was *not* demo*?* that wont happen....... a REAL demo man that watches that building fall KNOWS that was demo (no questions)


There is nothing irrefutable about that. In fact it makes perfect sense that the building fell the way it did. Once a substantial portion of a building begins falling the downward force increases exponentially and basically becomes a free fall. The math is quite simple really even for a guy like me with only a couple of semesters of college physics. You have seen videos of an avalanche right? Same concept.

But let's set that aside for the moment. It is a fact, and you can call any demolition company to verify this, that imploding a building of that magnitude takes months of preparation and hundreds of man hours. In fact a guy I know is an OSHA inspector who works those jobs for months at a time.

The main claim of the 911 conspiracy theorists is that these were controlled demolitions. So instead of trying to obfuscate the issue how about explaining how they managed to complete hundreds of man hours of work on a building without being seen.


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 29, 2009)

Oh and by the way here is some real science that debunks all your nonsense - have fun.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

One more on the guy who started all this garbage.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 29, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> There is nothing irrefutable about that. In fact it makes perfect sense that the building fell the way it did. Once a substantial portion of a building begins falling the downward force increases exponentially and basically becomes a free fall. The math is quite simple really even for a guy like me with only a couple of semesters of college physics. You have seen videos of an avalanche right? Same concept.
> 
> But let's set that aside for the moment. It is a fact, and you can call any demolition company to verify this, that imploding a building of that magnitude takes months of preparation and hundreds of man hours. In fact a guy I know is an OSHA inspector who works those jobs for months at a time.
> 
> The main claim of the 911 conspiracy theorists is that these were controlled demolitions. So instead of trying to obfuscate the issue how about explaining how they managed to complete hundreds of man hours of work on a building without being seen.


Anyone want to start a demo company with me?

We will make loads of cash! We will offer a slightly lower rate than the average demo company that will get the contracts.
We will tell them instead of waiting months to pull their building we can do it in a day! 

That's right one DAY! Hundreds of man hours seems a little much these days. I'm just thinking light fires that engulf at least 2 floors and we may need a few containers of diesel fuel on the bottom floor or basement if possible. 
Think of the savings not having to buy explosives,det cord, explosives insurance, lower staff. At one demo a day compared to one every few months we could put alot of em out of business. Mind you we will only be doing steel core buildings cause it just seems like a gravy job. 
WE WILL BE THE NEW STANDARD IN STEEL REINFORCED BUILDING DEMO!!!!


----------



## c5rftw (Sep 29, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> Anyone want to start a demo company with me?
> 
> We will make loads of cash! We will offer a slightly lower rate than the average demo company that will get the contracts.
> We will tell them instead of waiting months to pull their building we can do it in a day!
> ...




lol thought that was cool until, oh wait, when you put high heat(like jet fuel) on concrete, IT EXPLODES... hence steel reinforced CONCRETE. If just the steel could of held the buildings up by itself, dont you think they would of build with just steel to save money, I mean aren't your "evil" execs trying to save money for themselves... And another thing, you really think the architects who build the twin towers would ever imagine, first of all the pure force of a 600,000 pound aircraft going 400mph hitting and then being burned by jet fuel, which burns up to 2000degrees, for hours. yes 2000 degrees doesn't melt steel, but ask ANY metal urgist, and they will tell you that it certain as hell gets weaker. I build houses and you obviously know nothing about structers... and how can you talk about 9/11 like those peoples that died dont matter.... wow your twisted mind amazes me.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 29, 2009)

c5rftw said:


> lol thought that was cool until, oh wait, when you put high heat(like jet fuel) on concrete, IT EXPLODES... hence steel reinforced CONCRETE. If just the steel could of held the buildings up by itself, dont you think they would of build with just steel to save money, I mean aren't your "evil" execs trying to save money for themselves... And another thing, you really think the architects who build the twin towers would ever imagine, first of all the pure force of a 600,000 pound aircraft going 400mph hitting and then being burned by jet fuel, which burns up to 2000degrees, for hours. yes 2000 degrees doesn't melt steel, but ask ANY metal urgist, and they will tell you that it certain as hell gets weaker. I build houses and you obviously know nothing about structers... and how can you talk about 9/11 like those peoples that died dont matter.... wow your twisted mind amazes me.


Jet fuel in open air burns at 650F, it burns at 1400F ..IN A FUCKING JET ENGINE where it is compressed , super heated and stoichiometrically mixed with air and then ignited. Another funny thing is that you don't realize it, but the WHOLE building is made of steel, there is no steel reinforced concrete, the floors are steel, the walls are steel, the ceiling is steel, all of it. Not only were the buildings designed to take a hit from a 747 ( A larger aircraft) but they were designed to take MULTIPLE hits!! Oh and you said the fires burned for hours? Try 50 minutes.


All too easy.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 29, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Oh and by the way here is some real science that debunks all your nonsense - have fun.
> 
> http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm



The debris is paper and small pieces that do not have the mass of 3 ton steel beams, hence they don't fall as fast. In no way is it proof that the building isn't falling at near free fall speeds, you only have to know how tall the building was and then time how long it takes to fall to know if it fell faster than is physically possible. Debunking debunked.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Jet fuel in open air burns at 650F, it burns at 1400F ..IN A FUCKING JET ENGINE where it is compressed , super heated and stoichiometrically mixed with air and then ignited. Another funny thing is that you don't realize it, but the WHOLE building is made of steel, there is no steel reinforced concrete, the floors are steel, the walls are steel, the ceiling is steel, all of it. Not only were the buildings designed to take a hit from a 747 ( A larger aircraft) but they were designed to take MULTIPLE hits!! Oh and you said the fires burned for hours? Try 50 minutes.
> 
> 
> All too easy.






RUST(steel) + ALUMINUM(airplane) = up to 2500 degrees 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> RUST(steel) + ALUMINUM(airplane) = up to 2500 degrees
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite



LOL yup, you just know thats up to scrutiny.

This was already brought up anyway, the problem is that they could not mix in the correct proportion to create the reaction.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 29, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> LOL yup, you just know thats up to scrutiny.
> 
> This was already brought up anyway, the problem is that they could not mix in the correct proportion to create the reaction.


i'm not here to judge.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 30, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Oh and by the way here is some real science that debunks all your nonsense - have fun.
> 
> http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
> 
> ...


before 9/11 there had never been a single case of a steel high rise structure collapsing due to fire, not a single one

oh but here comes 9/11, and 3 high rise steel structures collapsed "due to fire" in one day


little odd


FDD your plane aluminum theory WOULD make sense, but what about the third building? wasnt hit by a plane



you see this skyscraper right here? its a fucking TORCH for god sakes












but it didnt collapse




its a fucking straight up fireball













this is the non-collapsed remains


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 30, 2009)

Keenly said:


> before 9/11 there had never been a single case of a steel high rise structure collapsing due to fire, not a single one
> 
> oh but here comes 9/11, and 3 high rise steel structures collapsed "due to fire" in one day
> 
> ...



with me not being on one side or the other (for this post) then those pics with the hundreds of other burnt buildings pics should be enough to prove the demo theory? (with a lil common sense)


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 30, 2009)

c5rftw said:


> I build houses and you obviously know nothing about structers...


Teehee... does anyone else think it's funny that because he builds HOUSES (which, last I checked, aren't typically made with steel or steel-reinforced concrete) he's somehow an expert on "structers"? (and is that short for CONstructers? As in, "those who construct"?)

Anyway...


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 30, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> RUST(steel) + ALUMINUM(airplane) = up to 2500 degrees
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite



One problem with the rust theory is that the steel facade of the building was covered with aluminum siding to discourage rust, and the interior beams were covered with asbestos for the same reason. Now, the buildings were 40some years old so you can imagine there would be some degree of rusting despite the measures taken to prevent it. But then consider that if the aluminum+rust accelerated the collapse of the building by raising the temperature of the fire, that the aluminum/steel facade on the building where the plane crashed through and the fires BEGAN would have collapsed or fallen off LONG before the steel beams were weakened enough to bring the whole building down.

Instead, what we saw was the free-fall collapse of the entire structure into its own footprint. Something that has never happened, before or since.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 30, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Instead, what we saw was the free-fall collapse of the entire structure into its own footprint. Something that has never happened, before or since.


 to that one.


----------



## c5rftw (Sep 30, 2009)

okay you guys are right, no point tryin to hide it anymore. bush pushed the switch... I knew, we all knew, we were just tryin to help our guys get away with this one....


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 30, 2009)

i read this shit everyday... and ask myself the same question...

Why doesn't everyone see a problem with the events of 9/11?

::shrugs:: ::turns on TV::


----------



## c5rftw (Sep 30, 2009)

So let me get this right, since you guys are experts.... since both building started collapsing RIGHT where the planes hit,,, how could you of planned this if it wasn't the planes themselves that caused them to fall and was some job by bush or corporate thugs or whoever.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 30, 2009)

c5rftw said:


> So let me get this right, since you guys are experts.... since both building started collapsing RIGHT where the planes hit,,, how could you of planned this if it wasn't the planes themselves that caused them to fall and was some job by bush or corporate thugs or whoever.


we will never know HOW but it happened PERIOD ... and in the very near future you will see a _new _official report.......lets wait an see what kind of bullshit changes they make to it .....................

A REAL INVESTIGATION WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TOO!


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 30, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> One problem with the rust theory is that the steel facade of the building was covered with aluminum siding to discourage rust, and the interior beams were covered with asbestos for the same reason. Now, the buildings were 40some years old so you can imagine there would be some degree of rusting despite the measures taken to prevent it. But then consider that if the aluminum+rust accelerated the collapse of the building by raising the temperature of the fire, that the aluminum/steel facade on the building where the plane crashed through and the fires BEGAN would have collapsed or fallen off LONG before the steel beams were weakened enough to bring the whole building down.
> 
> Instead, what we saw was the free-fall collapse of the entire structure into its own footprint. Something that has never happened, before or since.


----------



## c5rftw (Sep 30, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> we will never know HOW but it happened PERIOD ... and in the very near future you will see a _new _official report.......lets wait an see what kind of bullshit changes they make to it .....................
> 
> A REAL INVESTIGATION WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TOO!




No matter what, people wont believe it. I dont even really care about the buildings to tell you the truth. I just care about the needless loss of life


----------



## c5rftw (Sep 30, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


>


LOL.....nice


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 30, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Teehee... does anyone else think it's funny that because he builds HOUSES (which, last I checked, aren't typically made with steel or steel-reinforced concrete) he's somehow an expert on "structers"? (and is that short for CONstructers? As in, "those who construct"?)
> 
> Anyway...





it's called "engineering". what applies to one thing can easily carry over. 


i'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post.


----------



## c5rftw (Sep 30, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> it's called "engineering". what applies to one thing can easily carry over.
> 
> 
> i'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post.




thanks fdd2blk, love that song by metallica, btw. yes, i weld and construct steel.. we use plasma torches which cuts right through 1" think steel... it burns at 2500 degrees. 

To that other guy talkin about jet fuel in and open area burning at 650. well lets think, hmm, was it in open air, no. was it around a lot of flammable stuff, yes. this is was you call combustion, a lot of flammable stuff in a confined area . a diesel engine doesn't even need a spark to detonate with combustion.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 30, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> Anyone want to start a demo company with me?
> 
> We will make loads of cash! We will offer a slightly lower rate than the average demo company that will get the contracts.
> We will tell them instead of waiting months to pull their building we can do it in a day!
> ...





c5rftw said:


> lol thought that was cool until, oh wait, when you put high heat(like jet fuel) on concrete, IT EXPLODES... hence steel reinforced CONCRETE. If just the steel could of held the buildings up by itself, dont you think they would of build with just steel to save money, I mean aren't your "evil" execs trying to save money for themselves... And another thing, you really think the architects who build the twin towers would ever imagine, first of all the pure force of a 600,000 pound aircraft going 400mph hitting and then being burned by jet fuel, which burns up to 2000degrees, for hours. yes 2000 degrees doesn't melt steel, but ask ANY metal urgist, and they will tell you that it certain as hell gets weaker. I build houses and you obviously know nothing about structers... and how can you talk about 9/11 like those peoples that died dont matter.... wow your twisted mind amazes me.


Sorry I was speaking of #7. So yes it did burn for hours, but no jet, no jet fuel, no 2000degrees.
This is why I just thought to myself if that is the case that a fire can bring down steel buildings why don't we start demo-ing buildings using just fire? 

I've built a few dozen houses myself, but I don't know anything about steel. My dads house burned a few years back for a number of hours and after gutting it and re-wiring it's good as new.
I'm sorry if you see what I wrote as not caring about the ones who died that day.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 30, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> RUST(steel) + ALUMINUM(airplane) = up to 2500 degrees
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite


The infra-red photos taken that the commission ignored proved that the fires never got that hot. Not to mention the fact that unreacted thermite that was found dispels the "rust theory".


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 30, 2009)

Thermite seems common, but what about this stuff? 
Nano-thermite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nano-thermite is the common name of a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 30, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> There is nothing irrefutable about that.


Oh yeah there is ... and the fact that scientist, engineers, and family members want a real investigation, proves that.


RickWhite said:


> In fact it makes perfect sense that the building fell the way it did.


Not to the scientists, and engineers, I've posted in this thread ... they state how and why it doesn't wash.



RickWhite said:


> Once a substantial portion of a building begins falling the downward force increases exponentially and basically becomes a free fall.


Complete and total nonsense when you look at pictures of other skyscrapers completely engulfed in flames, which burn far longer than any of the WTC towers yet the steel remained standing. So explain why those buildings didn't collapse in their own footprint in a matter of seconds, only after burning less than an hour, for one, less than two for the other, and 7 hours for the third.



RickWhite said:


> The math is quite simple really even for a guy like me with only a couple of semesters of college physics. You have seen videos of an avalanche right? Same concept.


Then explain why the other skyscrapers didn't collapse if it's such simple math ... math is suppose to remain constant ... so why didn't the other buildings fall?



RickWhite said:


> But let's set that aside for the moment. It is a fact, and you can call any demolition company to verify this, that imploding a building of that magnitude takes months of preparation and hundreds of man hours. In fact a guy I know is an OSHA inspector who works those jobs for months at a time.


And construction work was done to the buildings prior to 911 ... they obviously had the opportunity to place what was need to bring down the buildings.



RickWhite said:


> The main claim of the 911 conspiracy theorists is that these were controlled demolitions. So instead of trying to obfuscate the issue how about explaining how they managed to complete hundreds of man hours of work on a building without being seen.


That not for us to do ... it for a real investigation to find out. Nuff said.


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 30, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The infra-red photos taken that the commission ignored proved that the fires never got that hot. Not to mention the fact that unreacted thermite that was found dispels the "rust theory".



i bore you? funniest shit ever.  

you live for this thread.


----------



## GrowRebel (Sep 30, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJk0I1_Efm8&feature=player_embeddedCarl Cameron Supports Questioning 9/11
[youtube]YJk0I1_Efm8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Carl Cameron is the reporter whose four-part story on Israeli Spying revealed that there was evidence linking 9-11 to the Mossad agents (aka the Dancing Israelis) arrested on 9-11, but that this evidence was classified by the US Government.
_"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell
you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."_ --
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

Pretty interesting conversation, he makes it clear, truthers are right to be beating the drums.

If faux finds out about this ... I think his ass will be in trouble.


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 30, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> it's called "engineering". what applies to one thing can easily carry over.
> 
> 
> i'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post.



Um.... how is a building made of wood AT ALL similar to a steel/concrete structure in how it would be affected by fire?

Also, structurally, the construction process is much, much different. A steel building is much heavier than a wooden one (and houses aren't typically hundreds of stories high).


So, please, enlighten me. How does the structural design of a wood framed house compare to the structure of a steel framed, steel walled building? And how are the two comparable in terms of how FIRE affects the structural integrity?


Answer: you CAN'T compare them. They are two completely different kinds of structures. Aside from the fact that they both typically have walls, floors, and ceilings, which does not qualify them as being similar types of structures.

Building houses out of WOOD does not make you an expert on STEEL FRAMED buildings. it doesn't even give you the knowledge to lay the foundation. Not even close.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 30, 2009)

A person in home construction is not an engineer, his skills do not translate over to 140 story steel structures from pine wood framed houses. The construction of the two is so vastly different that complete retraining would be needed.


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 30, 2009)

I just have to shake my head and laugh at this point. You guys asked for proof and I provided not only proof but THE FUCKING CALCULATIONS AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And all you guys can do is respond like a bunch of children with a bunch of silly, nonsense replies that demonstrate nothing. Like I said, I posted a link with actual calculations. Why don't you take the actual arguments and calculations in the links I posted and demonstrate why they are wrong?

You don't because we all know damn well you can't. Asking why no other building has collapsed from fire is non-sequitor. How many buildings had fully fueled commercial jets crash into them?

Why is it so hard to comprehend that at the temperatures that fire was burning steel loses 90% of its strength. Steel doesn't have to melt to buckle when under tremendous load. Why is it so hard to comprehend that acceleration due to gravity is exponential (-9.8M/S^2) and because F=MA F also builds exponentially? Why is it so hard to comprehend that the top 1/4 of a building falling onto subsequent floors and setting their weight in motion builds enough force to crush the building at near free fall speed? Ever hear of a little thing called momentum?

One guy even made the argument that if setting a building on fire will bring it down there would be no need for controlled implosions. That is one of the most retarded statements I have ever heard.

And why keep repeating that there are a bunch of "scientists" that disagree? Can you not grasp the concept of circular reasoning? Here is a hint - citing a a man's claim as proof of his claim is circular reasoning. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should know that but evidently that doesn't include you. ie, "Mr Jones conspiracy theory is correct because Mr. Jones says so."

Anyway, you guys asked for proof, I posted proof that is irrefutable times a million and you failed to offer anything even resembling a reasonable rebuttal. At this point all I can say is that there is no amount of proof in the entire Universe that could dislodge your heads from your ass'.

If you think you can, post the arguments from the links I provided and refute them with REAL SCIENCE, not with your idiotic slack jaw assumptions. If you can't do that do the world a favor and STFU already.


----------



## Keenly (Sep 30, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> . Asking why no other building has collapsed from fire is non-sequitor. How many buildings had fully fueled commercial jets crash into them?



once again, building 7 had NO plane crash into it


so your argument does...not....work


----------



## Keenly (Sep 30, 2009)

rick, if you use an axe to chop a tree down, does the tree collapse straight down? or does it tip over like this


| / __


'

so, in contrast, if a plane, the "axe" if you will, hit the towers

the tops should have fallen over sideways and left a stump of a skyscraper


thats not what happened...


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 30, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


>


C'Mon FDD stop trolling, you know you can't take a piece of aluminum and a piece of rusty steel and put them together and call it thermite, You MUST powder and mix the metals first, no way that could have happened from a jet impact.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 30, 2009)

WTC #7 was not hit by a plane! It's the engineers that say fire brought that building down Rick not me. I just thought that if that's possible why not do it regularly? Seems somewhat logical no? easier faster cheaper. Yes I question the official report, you talk as if #7 doesn't exist. or didn't sorry. If you look at just that building alone your whole post and points don't apply.


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 30, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> it's called "engineering". what applies to one thing can easily carry over.
> 
> 
> i'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post.



I built Lincoln log homes when i was 5, that makes me an expert on construction.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 30, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I just have to shake my head and laugh at this point. You guys asked for proof and I provided not only proof but THE FUCKING CALCULATIONS AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!


here is just *SOME* of the REAL scientist , architects , AND Engineers ... that dont like those "fucking calculations" 
http://patriotsquestion911.com/



RickWhite said:


> How many buildings had fully fueled commercial jets crash into them?


Uhh.. I think those buildings were *Designed *for an impact like that...were they not? You believe the demo theory you are just here to fuck with us...... YOU HAVE TO KNOW IT WAS DEMO BY NOW

so are all 80,000 of the NY folks just crazy conspiracy people?



RickWhite said:


> And why keep repeating that there are a bunch of "scientists" that disagree?


Because there are ! HUNDREDS THAT HAVE SIGNED A PETITION FOR A *REAL INVESTIGATION!*


----------



## RickWhite (Sep 30, 2009)

You think buildings are designed to survive a direct hit by a fully fueled commercial jet - well I guess that explains it.

BTW, building 7 was hit by pieces of building 1 as it fell - read the links I posted.

Again, you are just making another circular argument by saying these guys disagree. Have you figured out what a circular argument is yet? Plus, you are making an appeal to popular opinion - it doesn't matter how many people want an investigation. You need to look at my thread on Logical fallacies because you are using many of them.


----------



## wyteboi (Sep 30, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You think buildings are designed to survive a direct hit by a fully fueled commercial jet - well I guess that explains it.


are you still high..... In 1945 a b-29 bomber ran into the 75th floor of the Empire State Building THAT is why the buildings WERE designed to withstand impact from a boeing 707. i did NOT just think that up

_"WTC_ Engineer Says Building Would _Survive_ Jumbo _Jet_ *...* which found the Twin Towers could withstand the _impact_ of a Boeing 707"


You have to be a kid at this point.........


----------



## fdd2blk (Sep 30, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Um.... how is a building made of wood AT ALL similar to a steel/concrete structure in how it would be affected by fire?
> 
> Also, structurally, the construction process is much, much different. A steel building is much heavier than a wooden one (and houses aren't typically hundreds of stories high).
> 
> ...







well since you already answered all the questions you asked me i guess all you can do now is stfu.


----------



## stonurse (Sep 30, 2009)

hmm....911?? am not american but for me...IMHO it was all staged...it was too perfect...no way a plane can do that...


----------



## Keenly (Sep 30, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You think buildings are designed to survive a direct hit by a fully fueled commercial jet - well I guess that explains it.
> 
> BTW, building 7 was hit by pieces of building 1 as it fell - read the links I posted.
> 
> Again, you are just making another circular argument by saying these guys disagree. Have you figured out what a circular argument is yet? Plus, you are making an appeal to popular opinion - it doesn't matter how many people want an investigation. You need to look at my thread on Logical fallacies because you are using many of them.



oh but some how ALL other surrounding buildings, MOST of witch were CLOSER than wtc 7, got more falling debris on them ...but they were still standing



dude, you, as a person, simply can not, and i honestly mean its 100% impossible, for you to prove the official reports version of why wtc 7 fell

if thats ALL you do in this thread, which has not been much btw, then you will have proven yourself a worthy debater, cause so far, im not seeing it


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 1, 2009)

stonurse said:


> hmm....911?? am not american but for me...IMHO it was all staged...it was too perfect...no way a plane can do that...


and i seen that everyday after 911 for along time.......... with no internet , just mainsteam media to watch .........I KNEW IT WAS JUST TOO PERFECT. It did not take youtube to convince me, i seen the shit with my own eyes too, and with common sense , you just KNOW them planes could not have done that.  So i researched and here i am............
GOOD DAY ALL!


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> A person in home construction is not an engineer, his skills do not translate over to 140 story steel structures from pine wood framed houses. The construction of the two is so vastly different that complete retraining would be needed.


Thank you, NoDrama.  For you.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I built Lincoln log homes when i was 5, that makes me an expert on construction.



I built the Millenium Falcon out of legos once. 

NASA, here I come!


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

It's been a while since this photo was posted.

Do these beams look "buckled" to you guys?








You can clearly see some kind of residue on the beams around the "buckling". I guess it's just aluminum and rust, though, right?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> are you still high..... In 1945 a b-29 bomber ran into the 75th floor of the Empire State Building THAT is why the buildings WERE designed to withstand impact from a boeing 707. i did NOT just think that up
> 
> _"WTC_ Engineer Says Building Would _Survive_ Jumbo _Jet_ *...* which found the Twin Towers could withstand the _impact_ of a Boeing 707"
> 
> ...


And they said the Titanic was unsinkable didn't they. Was the sinking of the Titanic also a conspiracy?

I'm going to explain this real slow so you can understand it. Nearly everything you have posted is something called "circular reasoning." Now let me give you an example of circular reasoning that maybe you can understand.

Suppose someone says the following.

"I know God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible was written by God."

You see, that is the same type of "proof" you keep babbling on with. You keep saying that x,y & z must be true because this or that conspiracy nut say it is. You see, this is circular reasoning and it is fallacious.

What you have not done is provided any actual evidence. You have repeated your fallacies many times, but you have not DEMONSTRATED anything.

I provided actual physical evidence that disproved every claim made by the nuts you keep referring to and the only thing you have to say is "not according to this guy."

So, I have to ask, do you have any actual evidence or are you simply going to repeat fallacious statements ad-infinitum?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> rick, if you use an axe to chop a tree down, does the tree collapse straight down? or does it tip over like this
> 
> 
> | / __
> ...


If a moron with zero understanding of physics or engineering tries to compare chopping down a tree with the WTC coming down is he worth arguing with? No.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> WTC #7 was not hit by a plane! It's the engineers that say fire brought that building down Rick not me. I just thought that if that's possible why not do it regularly? Seems somewhat logical no? easier faster cheaper. Yes I question the official report, you talk as if #7 doesn't exist. or didn't sorry. If you look at just that building alone your whole post and points don't apply.


Gee I don't know, maybe because it isn't safe? Is it really possible for someone to be that monumentally stupid that they would contemplate setting skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan on fire in order to bring them down?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> It's been a while since this photo was posted.
> 
> Do these beams look "buckled" to you guys?
> 
> ...


So now you are implying that if there is a single straight piece of beam that proves no beams buckled. Maybe it also proves the buildings didn't actually fall too.

By the way, see those diagonal cuts. There is no way explosives or thermite can make a cut like that. Those cuts and the residue was made by a rescue worker cutting those beams with a torch. How is that not obvious?

Your own picture disproves your own theory.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> By the way, see those diagonal cuts. There is no way explosives or thermite can make a cut like that. Those cuts and the residue was made by a rescue worker cutting those beams with a torch. How is that not obvious?
> 
> Your own picture disproves your own theory.


Really? No way that thermite could have made those cuts, eh?

"Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is *not an explosive*, instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. *Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal *or weld metal components together by melting a very thin film where the components meet."


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

The thing I find most ridiculous about this thread and the whole 911 conspiracy is that so many people that have no background in physics or engineering try to take such a complex scenario and figure it out based on their layman's intuition. I refuse to see how anyone could be that simplistic in their thought process as to believe this is possible. Even when we look at the teeny tiny handful of "scientists" that support these theories we find they have no actual experience in this particular field of study. Everything else is merely one fallacy after the next. We see circular reasoning, begging the question, appeal to popular belief, etc...

What I find intriguing is that people can possibly be that woefully incapable of looking at something and making a sound, rational analysis about what they see. My theory on this is that the ability to think is something some have and some lack and that we have no objective way of measuring it at this point in time. Quite fascinating IMO.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> I built the Millenium Falcon out of legos once.
> 
> NASA, here I come!


i feel really sorry for you.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

holy shit, you just convinced me.  



now what? 













doobnVA said:


> It's been a while since this photo was posted.
> 
> Do these beams look "buckled" to you guys?
> 
> ...


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> It's been a while since this photo was posted.
> 
> Do these beams look "buckled" to you guys?
> 
> ...







yea thats quite a "buckle" there aint it.....
and there are PLENTY more pics better then this one that show a bunch of "buckled beams" on the ground in _nice_ 20 foot sections.


rick man, c'mon your better then this. 
why are you doing this to yourself? 
why is this so hard to believe?
we are not trying to feed you a line of conspiracy crap..... just showin you FACTS
Is it THAT hard to believe SOMEONE might have had them buildings pulled for profit? 
*I *am not sayin bush did it, and I also would like to know how all those people required to do this "job" could just keep quiet........ but the fact remains that it happened and they did keep quiet (except barry jennings who died shortly after speaking on the topic) and i am not sayin the government had him killed...... but the fact remains that it happened and they still wont tell us how he died..... So yes it IS our own government's fault that ALL this has not been investigated the right way.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i feel really sorry for you.



I feel sorry for me too, it took FOREVER. There were like a bazillion pieces. Then my son godzilla'ed it and it was no more.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> If a moron with zero understanding of physics or engineering tries to compare chopping down a tree with the WTC coming down is he worth arguing with? No.


they won't let me say a contractor knows a little bit about engineering, but a tree and a huge building are apparently the exact same thing. 


i'm starting to understand the term "nut job".


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Really? No way that thermite could have made those cuts, eh?
> 
> "Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is *not an explosive*, instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. *Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal *or weld metal components together by melting a very thin film where the components meet."


hun, it only works downwards. you can't cut sideways with it. it would just drip off the side and hit the floor.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> I feel sorry for me too, it took FOREVER. There were like a bazillion pieces. Then my son godzilla'ed it and it was no more.



so if a contractor knows shit about engineering, how the fuck do you know anything about buildings falling? can i please see YOUR credentials? 

legos don't count. 



you are defeating your own argument. you do realize that don't you? we are not allowed to accept the opinion of a person who builds homes, but we should listen to you? lol


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Now let me give you an example of circular reasoning that maybe you can understand.
> 
> Suppose someone says the following.
> 
> ...


Hmm... so who's using circular logic, again?

RickWhite, you always come out swinging against "circular logic" while using the VERY SAME circular logic try try and disprove the circular logic of others.


What you fail to "remember" is that, if not for a group of women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attacks, there would have been NO investigation. None. These women pushed for an investigation, and after a YEAR (and having to enlist the mainstream media in their cause) they were finally granted AN investigation, but hardly any of their questions/concerns were addressed.

There's a movie you can watch (I'm sure you won't), it's called 9/11: Press for Truth - that details the struggle of these women that led to the 9/11 commission report, and the TRUTH about the commission's report and the commission itself. Bush made sure the cards were stacked AGAINST a legitimate investigation in the first place, which is why there was never a legitimate investigation.

This is why New Yorkers are STILL pushing for a legitimate investigation into the attacks on 9/11, because the first one was a complete wash.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Gee I don't know, maybe because it isn't safe? Is it really possible for someone to be that monumentally stupid that they would contemplate setting skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan on fire in order to bring them down?


It seemed to work VERY well ! Had they cleared the area first it would have been safe as demo.
why dont you follow YOUR own fuckin directions and quit using "circular reasoning"
You are going by what a *few *people say(is that not "circular reasoning")......I am going by what I fucking seen with my own eyes *AND what thousands of engineers and scientist are saying. *


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> so if a contractor knows shit about engineering, how the fuck do you know anything about buildings falling? can i please see YOUR credentials?
> 
> legos don't count.
> 
> ...



I never said you aren't allowed to accept his opinion. I was merely pointing out that building homes does not make a person an expert (or even an authority) on the building of skyscrapers - Just as building spacecraft out of Legos does not prepare me for a job with NASA.

That's like saying you know all about how donuts are made because you eat cookies. 

If you want to rely on someone's opinion as "expert testimony" because they are involved in a completely unrelated and incomparable building trade, be my guest.

If that same person had said "I think 9/11 was an inside job. I know from experience all about skyscrapers because I build houses for a living" I would have the exact same problems with that statement. the fact that his opinion differs from mine is irrelevant. It would have been just as dumb of a statement if it came from someone on the conspiracy side of the debate.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> It seemed to work VERY well ! Had they cleared the area first it would have been safe as demo.
> why dont you follow YOUR own fuckin directions and quit using "circular reasoning"
> You are going by what a *few *people say(is that not "circular reasoning")......I am going by what I fucking seen with my own eyes *AND what thousands of engineers and scientist are saying. *



dude, dropping buildings with fire is unsafe and unpredictable. are you really arguing this?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> I never said you aren't allowed to accept his opinion. I was merely pointing out that building homes does not make a person an expert (or even an authority) on the building of skyscrapers - Just as building spacecraft out of Legos does not prepare me for a job with NASA.
> 
> That's like saying you know all about how donuts are made because you eat cookies.
> 
> ...






this is as far as i read because you are a LIAR!!!!!! you mocked and mocked and got your little friends to mock right along with you. now you try to deny it? you people need help.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> I never said you aren't allowed to accept his opinion. I was merely pointing out that building homes does not make a person an expert (or even an authority) on the building of skyscrapers - Just as building spacecraft out of Legos does not prepare me for a job with NASA.
> 
> That's like saying you know all about how donuts are made because you eat cookies.
> 
> ...



and NO it is NOT like any of what you are saying it is. comparing building house to buildings is not the same as eating cookies and knowing everything about donuts. 

how come every time i run into you i walk away thinking you are a complete idiot?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> they won't let me say a contractor knows a little bit about engineering, but a tree and a huge building are apparently the exact same thing.
> 
> 
> i'm starting to understand the term "nut job".


I am a contractor and i do know VERY LITTLE about engineering BUT its not enough to make a HUGE decision like that one! 
and yes i am a nut job *_fdd on the floor rolling* _ but that has nothing to do with how them buildings were brought down and you know it. fdd i know your just havin a lil fun with us "nut jobs" but i also know that you are not stupid! deep ,deep down in the inner fdd , You KNOW them buildings were controlled demo. Any nut job with common sense SEEN that them buildings should have "toppled" a lil more then they did ............That i think is grade 4 science. 
*_fdd thinking to himself....WOW, this guy is the real deal...... strait outta the nut house*

wb
_


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

ut oh, someone fucked this site all up, ... http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=505


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I am a contractor and i do know VERY LITTLE about engineering BUT its not enough to make a HUGE decision like that one!
> and yes i am a nut job *_fdd on the floor rolling* _ but that has nothing to do with how them buildings were brought down and you know it. fdd i know your just havin a lil fun with us "nut jobs" but i also know that you are not stupid! deep ,deep down in the inner fdd , You KNOW them buildings were controlled demo. Any nut job with common sense SEEN that them buildings should have "toppled" a lil more then they did ............That i think is grade 4 science.
> *_fdd thinking to himself....WOW, this guy is the real deal...... strait outta the nut house*
> 
> ...



you know? wow, you would think you'd be an engineer, if you were so insightful.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

Let's consider a moment that we all believe the attack was carried out by Al-Qaeda. What is the tactical purpose of making a public announcement pretty much right off the bat that Al-Qaeda was the perpetrator? Isn't this kind of the opposite of what's normally done? I mean, if you tell the bad guy you're onto him, he usually runs away before you can catch him, right? And why, when a "confession" from Al-Qaeda finally surfaced, why didn't the guy look anything like Bin Laden? Why wasn't there an investigation right from the start? I mean, you announce who the bad guy was _before_ the "confession", and without any investigation? That would be considered really shoddy work by any local police department, and we all know they don't exactly have the highest regard for procedure, standards, etc.

Let's look at motive, too. Who stands to benefit from this attack? Well, certainly not Al-Qaeda. George Bush? Well, he got to go to war, didn't he? I'm convinced that this was pretty much all he wanted out of the presidency right from the get-go. His war made a lot of his buddies very rich, at the expense of pretty much everyone else in the country. Look what we're left with: shitty economy, a neverending and seemingly un-winnable war, more Americans living in poverty than before, higher taxes, increased fear and mistrust of our government...well, I hope you get the point. The guy who had the most to gain and the least to lose was obviously the same guy who owned the WTC buildings in question.

Anyway, if there was actually any solid evidence that the attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda, I'd be inclined to believe it. The problem is, there just isn't any. All the evidence that _does_ exist seems to point towards the glaring reality of a cover-up, which means that we were lied to. What do most people do when they think they've been lied to? Well, they try to figure out the truth.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> this is as far as i read because you are a LIAR!!!!!! you mocked and mocked and got your little friends to mock right along with you. now you try to deny it? you people need help.


Calm down. The dude said he BUILDS houses. This is a job commonly known as "construction worker". Construction workers are not engineers. Architects (who design buildings) are engineers.

Construction workers can typically be found looking for work outside your local Home Depot store. 

*Not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post. *


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Calm down. The dude said he BUILDS houses. This is a job commonly known as "construction worker". Construction workers are not engineers. Architects (who design buildings) are engineers.
> 
> Construction workers can typically be found looking for work outside your local Home Depot store.
> 
> *Not trying to pick on you, just trying to get you to slow down and think before you post. *


stereotype much?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I am a contractor and i do know VERY LITTLE about engineering BUT its not enough to make a HUGE decision like that one!
> and yes i am a nut job *_fdd on the floor rolling* _ but that has nothing to do with how them buildings were brought down and you know it. fdd i know your just havin a lil fun with us "nut jobs" but i also know that you are not stupid! deep ,deep down in the inner fdd , You KNOW them buildings were controlled demo. Any nut job with common sense SEEN that them buildings should have "toppled" a lil more then they did ............That i think is grade 4 science.
> *_fdd thinking to himself....WOW, this guy is the real deal...... strait outta the nut house*
> 
> ...



doob just called you a stupid mexican.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> doob just called you a stupid mexican.


 to that one,


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> stereotype much?



Obviously you do. I didn't say anything about Mexicans, did i?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> The thing I find most ridiculous about this thread and the whole 911 conspiracy is that so many people that have no background in physics or engineering try to take such a complex scenario and figure it out based on their layman's intuition. I refuse to see how anyone could be that simplistic in their thought process as to believe this is possible. Even when we look at the teeny tiny handful of "scientists" that support these theories we find they have no actual experience in this particular field of study. Everything else is merely one fallacy after the next. We see circular reasoning, begging the question, appeal to popular belief, etc...
> 
> What I find intriguing is that people can possibly be that woefully incapable of looking at something and making a sound, rational analysis about what they see. My theory on this is that the ability to think is something some have and some lack and that we have no objective way of measuring it at this point in time. Quite fascinating IMO.


Umm rick? What you fail to realize is this. NO ONE is an expert on steel buildings falling over because of fire. Do you know why? Because it had never happened before or since because steel framed buildings do not fall over from normal fires period.

Here is a demo expert telling you that WTC#7 is a demo..

Unprejudiced Demo Expert.

[youtube]877gr6xtQIc[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)




----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> hun, it only works downwards. you can't cut sideways with it. it would just drip off the side and hit the floor.



Really? If they could cut sideways with WATER do you think they could do it with Nano Thermite?

[youtube]ENfxqvKoIaE[/youtube]


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 1, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> WTC #7 was not hit by a plane! It's the engineers that say fire brought that building down Rick not me. I just thought that if that's possible why not do it regularly? Seems somewhat logical no? easier faster cheaper. Yes I question the official report, you talk as if #7 doesn't exist. or didn't sorry. If you look at just that building alone your whole post and points don't apply.





RickWhite said:


> Gee I don't know, maybe because it isn't safe? Is it really possible for someone to be that monumentally stupid that they would contemplate setting skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan on fire in order to bring them down?


 That would be monumentally stupid! And it isn't safe. And nowhere did I say that's something I would do. Not where it isn't safe anyway. I'm sure there are other reason for it to not be safe too, and I apologize for sharing one of my what's next thoughts. Sometimes because I'm often on both sides of the fence but never sure I just think what's next like fdd sometimes says. You convinced me. what's next? 

That's just one that I posted because Rick telling us about planes and jet fuel and temps etc. I can believe 1+2 came down from the planes,damage,fuel etc. And somehow the only hard evidence of who did it was a passport that survived. I'm still undecided. I have a hard time with #7 and the pentagon. What's on the pentagon tapes that are being held confidential? I know it could be anything, but it surly can't be video of a plane flying into it that they don't want us to see? It these "little" things that get me sometimes.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Really? If they could cut sideways with WATER do you think they could do it with Nano Thermite?
> 
> [youtube]ENfxqvKoIaE[/youtube]



nano thermite burns, you posted a video of explosions.


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 1, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> Thermite seems common, but what about this stuff?
> Nano-thermite
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Nano-thermite is the common name of a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
> ...


there more on it in the wiki.


----------



## natrone23 (Oct 1, 2009)

WOW doobnva your a truther.

I thought you were intelligent


I thought the same thing about Crackerjax until he outed himself as a 'birther"


Same irrational behavior different side of the spectrum.

(scratches head)


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 1, 2009)

Uses

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[11] Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> If a moron with zero understanding of physics or engineering tries to compare chopping down a tree with the WTC coming down is he worth arguing with? No.




how does your infraction taste rick?

the 9/11 commission was set up to fail, even its own commission members said so


the evidence is stacked against you


you keep claiming to provide proof but all your posting is words, you have no sources

thats probably why theres about 6 or 7 people all over you in this thread right now


source


your


facts

when they are not sourced they are opinions

im still waiting to see those scientists who dont believe in the laws of physics

its ok though, there are people throughout history who flat out *refuse *to call a false flag when they see one


im sure there are still people who think the reichstag fire was not a false flag

the government got its propoganda in before the truth could come one, thus walling out any opening in your mind that hey, maybe. JUST maybe, our government is actually a very corrupt institution



i know, at first the human mind can not accept that people could in fact be so evil, so rotten to the core


but these are our high level officials, and the power will remain in the hands of those who care not about human life until they are exposed and something is done about it


if your so 100000% certain that the official story is true, then why are you, yourself not calling for a real investigation?


a real investigation would, in your theory, prove us all wrong and you could come back here to gloat all day


why arent you advocating that?


by the way, here is the chairman of the 9/11 commission claiming they were set up to fail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

Now you guys are simply stating your faulty claims over and over. No matter how many times you repeat them or how you rearrange the words your claims are still false.

Here is a little primer on how an argument is constructed since you guys obviously don't get it:

The first step is to make a claim, once you have made the claim you introduce evidence that supports your claim.

None of you have offered a shred of evidence to back your claims. All you have posted are a number of logical fallacies.

Meanwhile, nobody has posted a reasonable answer to a very simple question. If there was a conspiracy, how did the conspirators manage a controlled demolition when such a task requires hundreds of man-hours and major structural work on the building?

The answer is simple; either you can provide a detailed explanation of how this was accomplished or you have to admit that there was no controlled demolition. There is no way around this. Repeating yourself doesn't answer this question nor does simply citing the views of another nut job. Either there is a detailed explanation of how this happened or there is not. Its very simple, either post it or admit that you can't.

If you can't, and we all know you can't, you have to admit that this is a fatal flaw in your argument.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

I caught NoobDOOB in several lies already.... which he then lied about the lies...  He's a TROLL.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

natrone23 said:


> WOW doobnva your a truther.
> 
> I thought you were intelligent
> 
> ...


No, am I not a "truther". I am, however, not inclined to dismiss the probability that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were NOT perpetrated by Al-Qaeda as we were led to believe. I do not subscribe to the absolute certainty that 9/11 was an "inside job", but the evidence certainly seems to point to some sort of coverup.

I tried hard to ignore the evidence at first, because it sounds like a far-fetched conspiracy theory. Trust me, I am still a skeptic, but some of the arguments make too much sense to ignore.

Look at this:

http://www.nyccan.org/index.php

These are family members of victims and first responders themselves who were THERE, and they are STILL pushing for a real investigation because the first investigation was a sham.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

Here we have actual calculations that prove that the WTC did not fall at free fall speed. Perhaps someone might want to see if they can find a mistake in these calculations. See, this is called "real proof."

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far out pacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf 
The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.​
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so 
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, 
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
​


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Here we have actual calculations that prove that the WTC did not fall at free fall speed. Perhaps someone might want to see if they can find a mistake in these calculations. See, this is called "real proof."
> 
> In every photo and every video, you can see columns far out pacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
> Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
> ...




there seems to be an error in your graph there



there is a building missing


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

Yes Rick, it means that in order for a conspiracy to have taken place with SO MUCH explosives needed... EVERYBODY including the Janitors must have been in on the conspiracy.

Quick!! Round up all the Janitors!!!


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 1, 2009)

is there a chart like that for #7?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

And how much energy (heat) did this create?

Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be 
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be 
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our 
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf 
Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes Rick, it means that in order for a conspiracy to have taken place with SO MUCH explosives needed... EVERYBODY including the Janitors must have been in on the conspiracy.
> 
> Quick!! Round up all the Janitors!!!


See.. they told the janitors it was going to happen on the 12th


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

So they didn't notice all of the extra men and explosives being placed? You have no idea just how much time and effort it takes to rig a building like the WTT. 

It would be IMPOSSIBLE to do without security knowing it. The NYPD would take great issue with you.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfcRdeE9J60

according to this firefighter

explosions...

a body in the closet


maybe that body in the closet saw something he shouldnt have?


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

Yes, this so-called "lie" was France's poverty rate being lower than the US (which is true). And CrackerJax, who calls ME a troll, comes to this completely unrelated thread to continue his rant against me for pointing out his incorrect assertion that the poor in the US are better off than the poor in France.

Oh, the irony.

EDIT: edited just for the hell of editing.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

That sounds totally convincing. Ever hear a steel beam snap under enormous pressure? It sounds like a ........................BOMB.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

And Building 7.

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.
As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

Read more here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> That sounds totally convincing. Ever hear a steel beam snap under enormous pressure? It sounds like a ........................BOMB.



s snapping steel beam sends fire 20+ stories DOWN an elevator shaft and out the first floor?


wow


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 1, 2009)

good article 


> Bin Laden Family Members Evacuated from US in Wake of the 9/11 Attacks
> Part III
> 
> by Robert Bridge
> ...


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> And Building 7.
> 
> Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.
> As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.
> ...


more of that circular logic you were talking about



there is no proof of anything in that entire article

some guy sat down and wrote out words, posted it up on a website called "debunking 9/11"

and you take this to be accurate?

where are the pictures, illustrations, graphs, evidence to back up anything this man, or woman/ stated


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Now you guys are simply stating your faulty claims over and over. No matter how many times you repeat them or how you rearrange the words your claims are still false.
> 
> Here is a little primer on how an argument is constructed since you guys obviously don't get it:
> 
> ...


Quoted because nobody stepped up to the plate the first time. Anyone care to try to answer a real question?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

bin laden certainly was suspect number 1 according the media



according to the FBI there was, and still is, not enough evidence to connect bin laden to the attacks of september 11th

(call them up and ask)


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Meanwhile, nobody has posted a reasonable answer to a very simple question. If there was a conspiracy, how did the conspirators manage a controlled demolition when such a task requires hundreds of man-hours and major structural work on the building?


A: the company i work with ran into a deadline at work and we had bid 600 man hours to do the job and only had 4 days to complete. Guess what? We did it. In the Marine Corps we unloaded an aircraft carrier by hand and beat the Navy by 11 hours and they used cranes and lots of trucks. You can do a 1000 man hours of work in 1 hour if you have 1000 men to do the job. If you are motivated and tireless in your duties you can accomplish anything.

B: By Major structural work to what are you referring to?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Quoted because nobody stepped up to the plate the first time. Anyone care to try to answer a real question?


do i really have to explain this?



your post is you complaining about how we are debating.....rofl


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> more of that circular logic you were talking about
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Click the link genius.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Click the link genius.




everything im seeing only confirms how i already feel

you believe this stuff?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> A: the company i work with ran into a deadline at work and we had bid 600 man hours to do the job and only had 4 days to complete. Guess what? We did it. In the Marine Corps we unloaded an aircraft carrier by hand and beat the Navy by 11 hours and they used cranes and lots of trucks. You can do a 1000 man hours of work in 1 hour if you have 1000 men to do the job. If you are motivated and tireless in your duties you can accomplish anything.
> 
> B: By Major structural work to what are you referring to?


Baaahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you think they got 1000 men and gave her the old bum's rush and nobody noticed. Not even the army of security they hired after the first bombing in the early 90s. Gee, was that a conspiracy too?

The major structural work is opening all the walls and drilling the beams in order to insert shape charges. If you don't know this why are you even commenting?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> everything im seeing only confirms how i already feel
> 
> you believe this stuff?


You have not made a single intelligent comment in this entire thread. Why don't you just go away.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Here we have actual calculations that prove that the WTC did not fall at free fall speed. Perhaps someone might want to see if they can find a mistake in these calculations. See, this is called "real proof."
> 
> In every photo and every video, you can see columns far out pacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
> Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
> ...


I have better than that, lookeee here, If I threw a grand piano off of the top of one of the towers, it would take 10.4 seconds to hit the ground, how long did WTC take?? OMG its the same numbers you propose, how could this be unless the towers encountered no resistance from the "Supposedly" intact 100 stories below the impact? 

From ....http://www.v911t.org/Freefall.php

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Using the known distance across the WTC tower (208 feet) I was able to gauge the screen of this video to scale. Using the step forward feature of my DVD player each step forward is one frame, and it moves forward in time at 24 frames per second, and so I have known distances and known time. This makes it possible to estimate the time and distance traveled by an object between 2 known points. I kept track of the distance by adhering post it notes to my screen. 
See the method for used for estimating distances http://www.v911t.org/MakingScale.php 

In this screen shot I use the video controller to mark the exact spot where the tip of the antenna finally disappears. The starting point shows the antenna already in motion, I had to do that, otherwise the top of the antenna would not show up in the screen capture. Anyone with a DVD player, paint, Dreamweaver, and a way to crop pictures should be able to reproduce this precision analysis of the velocity of the collapse. [/FONT]*​ 




*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]See the method for used for estimating distances http://www.v911t.org/MakingScale.php[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]





At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft[/FONT]*​ 


 *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So we can see and measure the time it took for the antenna to move 231 feet with very good precision. We can conclude with great confidence that the WTC tower is falling with at least no resistance, and in fact may be being pulled down by a force in addition to gravity. As you can see in the calculations below an object falling in a vacuum would travel 100.4750 feet in 2.5 seconds. Here we have a descrepency that disagrees with the laws of gravity, the antenna falls 231 feet, and in a vaccum with no resistance it would have fallen 100.4750. [/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]





At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]See the method for used for estimating distances http://www.v911t.org/MakingScale.php[/FONT]*​ 



*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Calculators will not be functional here you will have to go to the site 
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html
[/FONT]*

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is a drag, but calculating fall time in atmosphere is much more complicated than in a vacuum, but here we estimate the fall time of an apple based on 3 Coefficients of Drag. Fairly small changes in the CD have a fairly drastic effect on fall time. 
CD for a sphere has a huge range from .07 to .5, an apple is not a sphere, so an educated guess is a CD of .7 

CD @ .07 dropped from 610 feet = TV of 290.274 ft/sec = fall time of 6.1599 secs
CD @ .5 dropped from _610 feet = TV of 108.61 ft/sec_ = fall time of 7.3043 secs 
CD @ .7 dropped from _610 feet = TV of 91.792 ft/s ___= fall time of 8.0770 secs 

See this video, a study of the fall of WTC 7 http://www.v911t.org/911Clips.php


Apples are not perfect spheres and so without wind tunnel testing one could estimate that .5 is closer to the CD than .07, or if we dropped an apple from 610 feet we could back our way in to the CD with algebra if we could observe the fall time. My guess is that the CD for an apple is more like .7 depending on the apple. Using a of .7 CD dropped from __610 feet = TV of 91.792 ft/sec 
Conclusion: Call in the Myth Busters [/FONT]*

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]See the method for used for estimating distances http://www.v911t.org/MakingScale.php[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]




[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons, with a red granite façade. The building was 610 feet (186 m) tall, with a trapezoid-shaped footprint that was 330 ft (101 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.[1][2] Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1984.[1] In March 1987, the building opened, to become the seventh structure of the World Trade Center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center [/FONT] * *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]




[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So we see that 345 feet is covered in 5.125, and 375 feet is covered in 5.33 seconds. Below are the calculations of distance covered in freefall in 5.125 and 5.33 seconds.[/FONT]*​ *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Freefall at 5.125 secs = ft and Freefall at 5.33 secs. = ft so it is safe to say that WTC 7 dropped at or very near freefall velocity. 422 v 345 (81.75%), is 77 feet more distance traveled. 456 v 375 (82.23%) freefall is 81 ft more distance traveled, so we can see based upon the gain of the % comparison that as the fall continues the building is getting closer to freefall velocity, not further away, in other words resistance is decreasing. WTC 7 is somehow accelerating at an increasing rate. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]See the method for used for estimating distances http://www.v911t.org/MakingScale.php[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]





At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]





At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft[/FONT]*





[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*This object falls 100 Meters (328 ft) in 4.4 seconds very nearly the same rate of fall as the examples above, further evidence of falling with nearly no resistance. 
source of the above freefall calculator: http://ww2.unime.it/weblab/mirror/ExplrSci/dswmedia/freefall.htm*[/FONT]​ 

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]==================================
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
CD chart courtesy of NASA:
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/shaped.html 
NASA has neglected to tell us what the frontal area is.

CD for a sphere has a huge range from .07 to .5 
CD @ .07 dropped from 610 feet = TV of 290.274 ft/sec = fall time of 6.1599
CD @ .5 dropped from __610 feet = TV of 108.61 ft/sec_ = fall time of 7.3043 secs 
CD @ .7 dropped from _610 feet = TV of 91.792 ft/s ___= fall time of 8.077 secs 
Apples are not perfect spheres and so without wind tunnel testing one could estimate that .5 is closer to the CD of an apple than .07, or if we dropped an apple from 610 feet we could back our way in to the CD with algebra if we could observe the fall time. My guess is that the CD for an apple is more like .7 depending on the apple. Using a of .7 CD @ .7 dropped from __610 feet = TV of 91.792 ft/sec 
Conclusion: Call in the Myth Busters [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Freefall Of an Apple to Terminal Velocity, and then fall 610 feet (equal to WTC 7)
Weight of Apple .43 Pounds
Size of Apple is 2.75 x 3 inches = 0.0625 sq ft
Drag Coefficient = .5 (worst case aerodynamic for a sphere) Note that an apple is not a sphere
Drag Coefficient = .07 (best aerodynamic case for a sphere) 
Source:
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/shaped.html 
Terminal Velocity = 290.274 ft per second or 88.4755152 meters per second. Source:
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html

=========================== Using 0.07 CD and 610 Feet ===============[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At time t = s after being dropped, the apple reaches terminal velocity and stops accelerating. 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , = terminal velocity

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft here shows you would need 1310 ft to accelerate to terminal velocity, so the apple would fall at freefall for 610 feet. which is seconds and never achieve terminal velocity. 
[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]=========================== Using .5 CD and 610 Feet================
After 3.3780 seconds, after travailing a distance of 183.4432 feet the apple reaches terminal velocity, then would travel another 426.5568 ft at108.61 ft/s = 3.9263 + initial time of 3.3780 = 7.3043, total distance of 610 feet 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states the height of WTC7 as 610ft = 185.928m
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf 
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At time t = s after being dropped, the apple hits terminal velocity 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , TV is achieved at after 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft In the first 3.3780 seconds the apple would travel 183.4432 feet with 426.5568 feet to go @ 108.61 ft/s = 3.9263 secs + initial time of 3.3780 secs = 7.3043 secs 
[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]=========================== Using .7 CD and 610 Feet================[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At time t = s after being dropped, the apple hits terminal velocity 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , terminal velocity

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft In the first 2.8549 seconds the apple would travel 131.0302 feet with 478.9698 feet to go @ 91.792 ft/s = 5.2179 secs + initial time of 2.8594 secs = 8.077 secs [/FONT] * 
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Alfons v911t 

Freefall [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the absence of frictional drag, an object near the surface of the earth will fall with the constant acceleration of gravity g. Position and speed at any time can be calculated from the motion equations. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Illustrated here is the situation where an object is released from rest. It's position and speed can be predicted for any time after that. Since all the quantities are directed downward, that direction is chosen as the positive direction in this case. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft
Enter data in any box and click outside the box. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Above tells how far something would fall in ten seconds. 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html
A very handy site for physics calculators

Below is the calculating for how fast something would fall from 417 Meters (the height of the WTC towers) 

[/FONT] * *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Freefall [/FONT]*

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the absence of frictional drag, an object near the surface of the earth will fall with the constant acceleration of gravity g. Position and speed at any time can be calculated from the motion equations. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Illustrated here is the situation where an object is released from rest. It's position and speed can be predicted for any time after that. Since all the quantities are directed downward, that direction is chosen as the positive direction in this case. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft
Enter data in any box and click outside the box. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can play with this and other calculators @ the gsu site to prove the WTC towers fell too fast. I put this here on the v911t for referenece to it, and to have it documented in case. 
[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT] * [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]========== A study of top 15 floors of WTC Tower Fall Time in Atmosphere===============
After 27 seconds, after travailing a distance of 12, 401 feet the top 15 floors of the WTC towers reaches terminal velocity, but we dropped the top 15 floors from 1181 feet, so it never achieves Terminal Velocity, and falls at the rate of free fall. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Freefall time from 1181 ft = 8.5710[/FONT]*

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]371800000 lbs(Total Mass of a WTC tower) /110 = 3380000 x 15 = 50700000 lbs (Total Mass of the Top 15 floors)
Mass of the Towers: 
http://forum.physorg.com/What-was-the-weight-of-a-WTC-Tower_4299.html
Area Dimension of a WTC Tower is 208.005 ft at base is 43264 sf
Dimension of Towers:
http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0002118 [/FONT]*

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Total Mass for top 15 floors[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 50700000 lbs[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cross Section Area [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]43264 sf[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Drag Coefficient[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.28[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Altitude [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1181[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Terminal Velocity [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]893  ft per second[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Terminal Velocity Calculator at NASA 
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html [/FONT] * 

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft The distance after being dropped is more than 1181 ft. , and will fall at the same rate as freefall 
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html
[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]




[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Freefall
At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of interest here is the fact that atmosphere alone would stop the top 15 Floors from accelerating just from drag, if you dropped it from above 12, 401 feet. This begs the question, how much would it be slowed down if it had to fall through the rest of the WTC tower? [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The density of a WTC Tower is 371800000/59185152 = 6.28 lbs per cubic feet 
Air density is 0.07 lbs per cubic foot [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The density of the medium that a body falls through has an effect on it's Terminal Velocity. 
A body will fall in a liquid slower than it will through a gas, and even slower through something solid. When stuff gets in the way, it slows down the thing moving through it, the more stuff in the way, the slower the body goes, if it is not stopped entirely. A bullet goes through the air faster than it goes through a 10 foot thick brick wall, when you move something it takes work/energy to do it. In the case of things falling, we know exactly what that quanity of energy is. This refutes the "pancake theory" in a solid and provable way, based on the bedrocks of Newtonian physics. Things fall slower when they fall through denser medium. 
[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]*
[/FONT] 
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]========== A study of Grand Piano Fall Time in Atmosphere===============
After 4 seconds, after travailing a distance of 257 feet the Grand Piano reaches terminal velocity, then falls 1111 at feet at 128.61 ft/s = 8.63 secs. + initial time of 4 seconds = 12.63 seconds total fall time from 1368 feet. 
At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , Terminal Velocity

The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html 

[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Total Mass of Grand Piano[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]285 kg = 628.317 lb[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cross Section Area [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25.8215261675 sf[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Drag Coefficient[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.28[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Altitude [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1368 ft. [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Terminal Velocity [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]128.615 ft per second[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html
[/FONT] * *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The beautiful new GC1 combines the duplex scaling and rich tonal character of the coveted C1 grand with cost-saving advantages in materials and production to create an instrument that's both expressive and uncommonly affordable.[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Grand Piano Specifications:[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]o Length: 161cm (5'3")[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]o Width: 149cm [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]o Height: 101cm[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]o Weight: 285k[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]o Finished in Black Polyester
161 x 149 = 23989 sq cm[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.pianoplus.co.uk/yamaha-piano/grands.html[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Piano Mass and dimensions in english and metric:
285 kg = 628.317 lb
161 cm = 5.28215 ft
149 cm = 4.88845 ft[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4.88845 x 5.28215 = 25.8215261675 sq. ft. [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Dropped From 1368 feet[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Drag Coefficient = 1.28 (Flat Object CD 1.28 
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/shaped.html
Altitude = 417 meters = 1368 ft[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]TV = 128.615[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But those are the outside dimensions of the piano, pianos are not rectangular, but more like a right triangle, shaped in the most economical way to encase the stings. So they actual surface area could be more like 13 sf. rather than almost 26 sf. Then Terminal Velocity would be 181.889 ft/sec
[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]




[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example of the shape of a Piano: http://www.strand7.com/html/pianopaper.htm[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 
After 5.65 seconds, after travailing a distance of 514.48 feet the Grand Piano reaches terminal velocity, then falls 853.52 at feet at 181.889 ft/sec = 4.69 secs. + initial time of 5.65 seconds = 10.34 seconds total fall time from 1368 feet. 

At time t = s after being dropped, 
the speed is vy = m/s = ft/s , 
The distance from the starting point will be 
y = m= ft [/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Total Mass of Grand Piano[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]285 kg = 628.317 lb[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cross Section Area [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16 sf[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Drag Coefficient[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.28[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Altitude [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1368 ft. [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Terminal Velocity [/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]181.889 ft/sec[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html [/FONT] * *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
So the fall time would likely be between 10.34 seconds and 12.63 seconds, depending on the shape, and the attitude the piano assumes as it falls. 
[/FONT]*

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]*
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]*
Beat that!


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You have not made a single intelligent comment in this entire thread. Why don't you just go away.


i laugh at your useless attempt to discredit everything i have said



according to the rep i have received in the last 48 or so hours, a lot of people agree with what i have to say in this thread


so why dont we do something interesting here


RickWhite, You have not made a single intelligent comment in this entire thread. Why don't you just go away.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Baaahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> So you think they got 1000 men and gave her the old bum's rush and nobody noticed. Not even the army of security they hired after the first bombing in the early 90s. Gee, was that a conspiracy too?
> 
> The major structural work is opening all the walls and drilling the beams in order to insert shape charges. If you don't know this why are you even commenting?



You don't drill steel beams, you would drill reinforced concrete beams. You do realize these buildings are not made of concrete right? Or are you still lost on this?

No one says they used shaped charges ( They don't they use det cord), we are saying NANO THERMITE was used to cut the beams. You are having a hard time following all this ?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

i cant rep you drama, or i would a million times


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i laugh at your useless attempt to discredit everything i have said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NOOOOOO do not let Rick go, we WANT you here, You help us make our point, DO NOT LEAVE THIS THREAD!!!


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i cant rep you drama, or i would a million times


Same goes for you both! interesting.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> You don't drill steel beams, you would drill reinforced concrete beams. You do realize these buildings are not made of concrete right? Or are you still lost on this?
> 
> No one says they used shaped charges ( They don't they use det cord), we are saying NANO THERMITE was used to cut the beams. You are having a hard time following all this ?


Several obvious flaws here though.

First... ANY explosives.... would have to be placed ALL over to accomplish such a mighty feat. All in secret? Very very doubtful.

Second, Nano Thermite. 
If someone wanted to take down the WTT's... they would NOT use Nano Thermite at all. There are far better and safer charges to use. 

It's simply another indication of seeing the results and trying to backward fit a theory onto it.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I have better than that, lookeee here, If I threw a grand piano off of the top of one of the towers, it would take 10.4 seconds to hit the ground, how long did WTC take?? OMG its the same numbers you propose, how could this be unless the towers encountered no resistance from the "Supposedly" intact 100 stories below the impact?
> 
> From ....http://www.v911t.org/Freefall.php
> 
> ...


Easily. There is no way in the world to calculate the terminal velocity of a falling building that is burning and hit by a commercial jet. Plus, even by these calculations the buildings took a few more seconds to collaps than an object in free fall. In the last second or two a free falling object would have travled hundreds of feet further. The calculations only reinforce wht I posted if you read them carfully.

One more thing. The author clearly is attempting to decieve people because he calculated the fall of the piano based on it falling horizontal with maximum surface area catching wind like a sail. In reality the piano would turn vertically and fall much faster. The same is true when skydivers fall. If you spread out and fall flat you fall around 180MPH but if you go into a dive you fall at around 220MPH IIRC.

Your data is a fraud.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

We say nano thermite because its already been proven to be in the dust samples taken on 911. There are certainly 1000 ways to skin a cat and I am not above accepting other methods of demo, but no facts have been presented to refute the find of nano thermite. There could possibly be a certain nano that was specifically designed or manufactured to do exactly what we are saying it did, cut steel beams or somehow degrade them to the necessay degree to cause 100% failure throughout the whole structure. Since all of the debris was instantly carted off and completely destroyed right away seem a bit fishy to me, I mean junk yards hold twisted metal stuff for years and years. Why go and melt down all the 911 steel right away?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Easily. There is no way in the world to calculate the terminal velocity of a falling building that is burning and hit by a commercial jet. Plus, even by these calculations the buildings took a few more seconds to collaps than an object in free fall. In the last second or two a free falling object would have travled hundreds of feet further. The calculations only reinforce wht I posted if you read them carfully.




"but but but, you cant measure the falling speed of this magic debris cause is magic, and some how different from every other object in existence"


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Easily. There is no way in the world to calculate the terminal velocity of a falling building that is burning and hit by a commercial jet. Plus, even by these calculations the buildings took a few more seconds to collaps than an object in free fall. In the last second or two a free falling object would have travled hundreds of feet further. The calculations only reinforce wht I posted if you read them carfully.



The calculations all come from NASA, its not like they AREN'T rocket scientists or anything. Your theory of a falling body only holds true in a pure vacuum, objects on earth reach a terminal velocity ( They won't go faster) in the first 4 seconds.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

here is newly released footage of the second plane hitting


at approx. 9-12 seconds, you can see a HUGE fireball, this is all of the jet fuel exploding and burning off as it catches fire on impact



this evidence is right in front of you, so debate it

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/new-footage-of-the-911-wtc-attack.html#more


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> here is newly released footage of the second plane hitting
> 
> 
> at approx. 9-12 seconds, you can see a HUGE fireball, this is all of the jet fuel exploding and burning off as it catches fire on impact
> ...



If you watch that video, you clearly see the fires are blowing air outwards , see all the paper floating in the air a mile away? its not sucking huge amounts of oxygen into it feeding itself. Good find Keen!!


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> You don't drill steel beams, you would drill reinforced concrete beams. You do realize these buildings are not made of concrete right? Or are you still lost on this?
> 
> No one says they used shaped charges ( They don't they use det cord), we are saying NANO THERMITE was used to cut the beams. You are having a hard time following all this ?


Well since I have actually wired a couple dozen buildings I think I know how they are constructed. They absolutely do use shape charges and they insert them in holes in the steel beams - maybe they torch the hole - same thing. The shape charges are wired together so they go off at a precise moment.

I have seen this done.

They do not use thermite to bring down buildings. Thermite slowly melts and drips downward as the reaction proceeds and it is nowhere near precise enough to be used to implode a skyscraper. To do that hundreds or thousands of charges must go off within a microsecond or the building will not come straight down. Thermite doesn't do that.

Here is an article on how building are demolished.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Well since I have actually wired a couple dozen buildings I think I know how they are constructed. They absolutely do use shape charges and they insert them in holes in the steel beams - maybe they torch the hole - same thing. The shape charges are wired together so they go off at a precise moment.
> 
> I have seen this done.
> 
> They do not use thermite to bring down buildings. Thermite slowly melts and drips downward as the reaction proceeds and it is nowhere near precise enough to be used to implode a skyscraper. To do that hundreds or thousands of charges must go off within a microsecond or the building will not come straight down. Thermite doesn't do that.


nodrama already posted pics of explosions happening while the towers were collapsing


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Easily. There is no way in the world to calculate the terminal velocity of a falling building that is burning and hit by a commercial jet. Plus, even by these calculations the buildings took a few more seconds to collaps than an object in free fall. In the last second or two a free falling object would have travled hundreds of feet further. The calculations only reinforce wht I posted if you read them carfully.
> .


REALLY??? Somehow I cannot determine it? How about NASA? Theirs your rocket scientists. And if I cannot determine the fall rate, then Neither can you and that graph you showed is fraud!!!!

Hurry everyone call your senator and tell them NASA is complicit in fraud!! Rick Said so!!


----------



## Keenly (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> REALLY??? Somehow I cannot determine it? How about NASA? Theirs your rocket scientists. And if I cannot determine the fall rate, then Neither can you and that graph you showed is fraud!!!!


lol he edited his post with a link to images that further our cause!


priceless!


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Well since I have actually wired a couple dozen buildings I think I know how they are constructed. They absolutely do use shape charges and they insert them in holes in the steel beams - maybe they torch the hole - same thing. The shape charges are wired together so they go off at a precise moment.
> 
> I have seen this done.
> 
> ...


You do know they aren't called "Shape" charges right? You must not because you are using the wrong name for them, they are called "Shaped" charges because they are contained in something that has a shape that directs the energy of the explosive to whatever you desire.

BTW you talking to someone who actually HAS explosives experience. You have none, otherwise you would know your terminology and the fact that you do not "WIRE" them, there is only wire from the initiator to the detonator ( Usually Composition c HE1 explosive), All those "Wires" you see between the explosive bundles? thats actually called det cord, and it too is a high explosive, it comes in different flavors, the only difference being the burn rate so that all explosives can be timed for proper sequencing.

I see right through your bluff, don't try to be an expert when you haven't a clue.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 1, 2009)

to keen and NO cant give rep either but u deserve it!
geez i missed ALOT in a few hours.....


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

Know what this reminds me of?








gosh that sure does look similar to :







That first vid is from Ricks link on how demo is done.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 1, 2009)

Wow ... you guys have been busy ... great work too! Thanks. Just a quick post ... doing some research will be back when I can ...

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call For New 911 Investigation


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> And Building 7.
> 
> Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.
> As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.
> ...



See this picture?






Thats WTC building 7 in the middle of all those other buildings, why is it the only one that was flattened?


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 1, 2009)

This shows that the NIST Report was bogus ...

The NIST WTC Investigation--
How Real Was The Simulation?

The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions
experimentally. On the contrary, many of NISTs tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, *there are several
examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data*, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgment on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.
NISTs physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly
modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted *NISTs conclusions and the latter fell far short of
testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions*. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The
*ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires *they experienced on
9/11.
There were also *flaws in NISTs computer simulations*, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation,
its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The
LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NISTs
subsequent scenario pruning was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to
pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NISTs theory but not explained or supported by simulation.
This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, *are not
inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2.

*Here's another paper that undermines the NIST report ... 

29 Structural & Civil
Engineers Cite Evidence for
Controlled Explosive
Demolition in Collapses of All
3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11
New evidence mounting over the years only validated initial discomfort: eyewitness testimony of explosions, unexplained molten iron in the debris pile, and chemical evidence of steel-cutting incendiaries all omitted from government reports. Many engineers attack implausibilities in the Baant pile driver model,
the 2002 FEMA report and the 2005 NIST report, and
also slipshod and dishonest methodology.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

nodrama said:


> you do know they aren't called "shape" charges right? You must not because you are using the wrong name for them, they are called "shaped" charges because they are contained in something that has a shape that directs the energy of the explosive to whatever you desire.
> 
> Btw you talking to someone who actually has explosives experience. You have none, otherwise you would know your terminology and the fact that you do not "wire" them, there is only wire from the initiator to the detonator ( usually composition c he1 explosive), all those "wires" you see between the explosive bundles? Thats actually called det cord, and it too is a high explosive, it comes in different flavors, the only difference being the burn rate so that all explosives can be timed for proper sequencing.
> 
> I see right through your bluff, don't try to be an expert when you haven't a clue.


wonderful!!!!!!!!

Since you know so much about imploding a building why don't you explain in detail what would be involved in imploding the wtc and how this was able to occur without anyone noticing!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 1, 2009)

Keenly said:


> lol he edited his post with a link to images that further our cause!
> 
> 
> priceless!



His link even likens demolishing a building to chopping down a tree. Didn't he ridicule you earlier for making that analogy?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

He isn't reading his own links. In a desperate move to try and hide his obfuscation he is frantically trying to put so much info out there in hopes of confusion.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

I got this from:..http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11


The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:
_The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings *The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. * The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure._[3]
In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be _the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind_.[4]
Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, _all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind._[5] As well, _Live loads on these columns can be increased *more than 2,000% before failure occurs*._[6]
In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:
_The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the centers design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerabilityOSullivan consults one of the trade centers original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on* whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.** He is told there is little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked*_.[7]
One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they _looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, *even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side* A previous analysis* carried out early in 1964*, calculated that the towers *would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing*._[8] 
This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[9] In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower.[10] Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were *only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the **World Trade Center's designers anticipated*_._[11]

In fact, Hoffman observes that _a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size._[13]
Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this problem. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:
_Our analysis indicated* the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building.* There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed *The building structure would still be there*._[14]
In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11.[15] This further supports Skillings analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, _the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early *1964*, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated *February 3, 1964*._[16] This white paper concluded that:





_The buildings have been investigated and *found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707DC  traveling at 600 miles per hour.* Analysis indicates that such collision would* result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building* and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact._[17] 
Thompson explains that _besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made._[18] In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because _the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining accessand delayed the BPAT team in gaining accessto pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns._[19]
The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and _Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice_ finally obtained the WTC blueprints from an anonymous individual.[20] 
Although the WTC was _over-designed to withstand almost anything including *hurricanes*, *high winds,* *bombings* and an *airplane* *hitting* it_, [21] the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:
_Skillinga recognized expert in tall buildingsdoesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. *The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.* __However,__ he added, __I'm not saying that properly applied explosivesshaped explosivesof that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage._ _ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says *there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.* _*I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.*[22]
One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:
_Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, *I designed it for a 707 to smash into it*, though does not elaborate further._[23]
Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were _in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to *resist the impact of a jet airplane*._[24] 
Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially survive _multiple_ plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:
_The building was *designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it*. That was the largest plane at the time.* I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners* because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen doorthis intense gridand the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting._[25] 
Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind to help save at least 50 people.[26] As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11. 
In summary, the World Trade Center designers not only contemplated jet fuel firesthey considered the plane crashes that would have caused them. They anticipated impact speeds of 600 mph as well as aircraft similar in size to the planes used on 9/11. The towers were designed to survive substantial column loss along with 100 mph winds. They were intended to survive bombings, earthquakes, and hurricanes. If the designers were sufficiently competent in the planning and realization of their award-winning WTC Towers as intended, they should have remained standing. Tragically, they did not. From this irreconcilable fact there can only be two conclusions; either the designers were inadequate in their designs, or there is an alternate explanation for their destruction on 9/11. 
However, these are not all of the facts. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made statements which directly contradict previous comments by other building designersincluding himself.
According to Paul Thomspon, it was reported on Sept 3-7, 2001 _the Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and *traveling at 180 mph* crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly._[27] 
Surprisingly, Robertson claimed that the WTC Towers were designed to survive plane crashes at speeds of *180 mph*.[28] He also repeated this claim in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006.[29] However, these statements are contradicted by Skilling, who indicated that _a previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling *at 600 mph without collapsing.*_[30] Robertson is also somewhat contradicted by his own statement in 1984-5 that there was *little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked*_._[31]
Immediately after 9/11 it was reported that _the engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said.* *We're going to hold off on speaking to the media,_ _said the partner, Rick Zottola, at Leslie E. Robertson Associates._ _We'd like to reserve our first comments to our national security systems, F.B.I. and so on._[32] 
Later, in 2002, Robertson said: _to the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance._[33] In 2005, NIST also claimed that they had been _unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel._[34]
These statements ignore the fact that Skilling claimed in 1993 that _Our analysis [*in 1964*] indicated* the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building.* There would be a horrendous fire *The building structure would still be there*._[35]
As well, Robertson said the following in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006:
_I support the general conclusions of the NIST report The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying *slow flying* Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was *not designed for a high speed impact* from the jets that actually hit it Yes there was a red hot metal seen [in the WTC rubble] by engineers. MoltenMolten means flowing*Ive never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal*, or by the way if they had seen it, if they had* performed some kind of an analysis to determine what that metal was*._[36] 
Three of these claims are demonstrably problematic. The claim about slow flying aircraft has already been discussed.[37] The statement about molten metal is also contradicted by many eyewitness statements.[38] In fact, it is possible that Robertson himself saw this molten steel, but this fact is not confirmed at the present time.[39] 
Not only had many witnesses claimed to have seen this molten metal, FEMA had performed an analysis of it. Their observations were recorded in Appendix C of their WTC Building Performance Study.[40] Ironically, Robertson stated that he was not aware if anyone had performed an analysis on the molten steel in an interview with Joneswho had also performed an analysis of previously molten metal samples from Ground zero.[41] Jones findings appear to be corroborated by the FEMA report which described _a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, *which caused *_*intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.*[42] The New York Times described this as *perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation*.[43] NIST did not even mention the presence of molten steel and called it *irrelevant to the investigation*.[44] Amazingly, NISTs 10 000 page, $20 million report couldnt find the space to mention the earlier findings about the molten steel analyzed in the FEMA report. There have even been reports of evaporated steel.[45]
The presence of molten steel would be very surprising because jet fuel fires are incapable of melting steel.[46] In fact, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel.[47]
*Conclusions*
It is demonstrable that the WTC building designers claimed that the Twin Towers would survive an event similar to 9/11. Either the WTC building designers were tragically wrong in their calculations and designs, or there is another explanation for the destruction of the WTC Towers. After 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson has made claims that are contradicted by statements and documents from as many as 40 years ago. These contradictions must be resolved through the release of all of the pertinent WTC documents that have been withheld since 9/11. 



[1] Research based on Paul Thompsons _Complete 9/11 Timeline_ and other sources. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson 
[2] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, _The Height of Ambition_, New York Times, September 8, 2002.
[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, _City in the Sky: The rise and fall of the World Trade Center_, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, pages 134-136.
[4] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117
[5] Glanz and Lipton, _City in the Sky_, page 133.
[6] _How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings_, Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
[7] Glanz and Lipton, _City in the Sky_, Page 227_. _See also Paul Thompsons _Complete 9/11 Timeline._ 
[8] Ibid. pages 131-132.
[9] Jim Hoffman, _Towers' Design Parameters: Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's_, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html. 
[10] _World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations_, FEMA Report 403, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Washington, DC, 2002. Page 31.
[11] Hoffman, _Towers' Design Parameters_.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Eric Nalder, _Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision_, Seattle Times, February 27, 1993.
[15] James Glanz, and Eric Lipton, _Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says_, Fri March 29, 2002, _New York Times_.
*Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire*_._ 
Norman Glover, Fire Engineering, _Fire Engineering journal_, October 2002.
_Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. *No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire*_
[16] Thompson, _Complete 9/11 Timeline._ February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
[17] Glanz and Lipton, _City in the Sky_, pages 131-2.
[18] Thompson, _Complete 9/11 Timeline._ February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
[19] _Hearing before the Committee on Science_, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, March 6, 2002, Serial No. 10746.
[20] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, _Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower_, March 27, 2007. http://www.stj911.org/. 
[21] Christopher Bollyn, _Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded Inside WTC_, American Free Press, October 22, 2001.
[22] Nalder, _Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision_
[23] _Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact_, The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.
[24] Leslie E. Robertson, _Reflections on the World Trade Center_. National Academy of Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1 - Spring 2002.
[25] Prisonplanet.com, _WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes_, http://www.prisonplanet.com/, November 14, 2004. 
[26] _DeMartini will be in his office on the 88th floor of the north tower when it is hit on 9/11. He will die when the tower collapses, after helping more than 50 people escape._ [Associated Press, 8/29/2003; New York Times, 8/29/2003]
[27] Glanz and Lipton, _City in the Sky_, pages 138-9, 366. 
[28] Nalder, _Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision_
[28] _Towers Built to Withstand Jet Impact_. See also: Thompson, _Complete 9/11 Timeline_, Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It. These articles from the day after 9/11 make clear the fact that this statement was made before 9/11: _Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer,* spoke last week at a conference* on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany._
[29] See a partial transcript of this interview included below.
[30] Thompson, _Complete 9/11 Timeline_, February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
[31] Glanz and Lipton, _City in the Sky_, Page 227_. _See also Paul Thompsons _Complete 9/11 Timeline._
[32] James Glanz, _Believed to Be Safe, the Towers Proved Vulnerable to Jet Fuel Fire_, The New York Times, September 12, 2001
[33] Robertson, _Reflections on the World Trade Center_
[34] National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, page. 13
[35] Nalder, _Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision_
[36] _Steven Jones in discussion With Leslie Robertson,_ by KGNU Radio, Denver, CO, Oct 26, 2006. http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3. See also: 
Gregg Roberts, _Jones v. Robertson: A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center_, http://journalof911studies.com/ 
[37] See another statement by Robertson here: _The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (*a slow-flying Boeing 707* lost in the fog and seeking a landing field)._ Taken from: Robertson, _Reflections on the World Trade Center_
[38] George Washington, _Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?_ December 06, 2005. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/ 
[39] James M. Williams, SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, Volume VI- Issue II October 2001
Someone, quite possibly Leslie Robertson _describes fires still burning and* molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks*._ See also: 
Gregg Roberts, _Jones v. Robertson: A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center_
_It is possible that Robertson himself said this. James Williams, SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001. This was one of points listed by SEAU president Williams, after stating that Robertson was a guest of SEAU and presented to them a number of interesting facts including some you might not have heard. As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. page 3, http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf. An email sent to the Seau.org contact email address to clarify this point went unanswered._
[40] See here for pictures and comments in FEMAs report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
_Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. *Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study.* Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in _JOM_ disclosing some of this evidence._
_The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese._" The New York Times described this as "_perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation._ WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
[41] Paul Watson, _Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries_, June 20, 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/ _using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples [of iron taken from Ground Zero]we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese*these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate.*_ See also:
Griffin, _The Destruction of the World Trade Center_ and Jones, _Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?_
[42] Joan Killough-Miller, _The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel_, WPI Transformations, Spring 2002. 
[43] Ibid.
[44] Jim Hoffman, _NIST's World Trade Center FAQ A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's_ Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. August 30, 2006.
[45] _Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened *Fire and the structural damage would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated*__ from: _
James Glanz, _Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated_, New York Times, November 29. 2001.
[46] *The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons* *(jet fuel)* in air is, thus, about *1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.* Taken from: Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). _Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse_? Science, Engineering, and Speculation, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
[47] Kevin Ryan, _A New Standard for Deception_, June 4, 2006. See also: _NIST and the World Trade Center_.


----------



## hempcurescancer (Oct 1, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Hey TED! ... you are just going to LOVE this article check it!
> 
> Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11
> "I saw those towers fall and I've seen an implosion in Las Vegas - there's too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn't get hit by nothing," added Nelson, referring to WTC Building 7 which collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11.
> ...


+ rep for that shit. Its good to know that fellow potheads are aware of the truth.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

Since you failed to answer the question I'll post it again.

Since you know so much about imploding a building why don't you explain in detail what would be involved in imploding the wtc and how this was able to occur without anyone noticing!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Why is it so difficult for you to answer this one simple question? Because you know damn well your ass is in checkmate, that's why.

Game over - I win. Oh, but thank you so much for playing.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> If you watch that video, you clearly see the fires are blowing air outwards , see all the paper floating in the air a mile away? its not sucking huge amounts of oxygen into it feeding itself. Good find Keen!!


um, dude, in order for air to be BLOWN OUT, it has to be SUCKED IN from somewhere. 

i'm just saying. 


most likely the lobby.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

The conspiracy would have to involve thousands of people. It's quite impossible.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> um, dude, in order for air to be BLOWN OUT, it has to be SUCKED IN from somewhere.
> 
> i'm just saying.
> 
> ...


True and very likely, but it just shows how hot the fire isn't, paper burns pretty readily, yet full pieces are flying out of this supposed raging inferno in excess of 1800 degrees.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 1, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> True and very likely, but it just shows how hot the fire isn't, paper burns pretty readily, yet full pieces are flying out of this supposed raging inferno in excess of 1800 degrees.




i'd be a fool to argue with you.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

You know what, I'm going to go with a magazine which prides itself on being fairly objective, and fairly scientific in their approach of things.

That's right. I'll go with Popular Mechanics who just issued a complete special report on their findings.

Here's the link. Where saner heads reside.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The conspiracy would have to involve thousands of people. It's quite impossible.


Nothing is impossible when it comes to media mind control of the weak sheeple, sure it may have taken quite a few people to pull this off, but what if the majority of them came from another country and were only following orders and went back to their own country and no one would believe them even if they said they did it, and certainly no one from the USA would hear about it even if they did slip up and expose themselves. That would only leave a few key people in the US gov't and Military who would have to be in charge to accomplish this. I can't tell anyone HOW exactly the buildings were demo'd, I did not do the deed, any part of my opinion is pure speculation, just as their theories are also.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You know what, I'm going to go with a magazine which prides itself on being fairly objective, and fairly scientific in their approach of things.
> 
> That's right. I'll go with Popular Mechanics who just issued a complete special report on their findings.
> 
> ...



We already debunked that debunking earlier in the thread.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You know what, I'm going to go with a magazine which prides itself on being fairly objective, and fairly scientific in their approach of things.
> 
> That's right. I'll go with Popular Mechanics who just issued a complete special report on their findings.
> 
> ...



[SIZE=+4]Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth [/SIZE] 

[SIZE=+2] by Jim Hoffman [/SIZE] 





The eye-catching headline on the issue's cover is "9/11 LIES", with "DEBUNKING" and "Conspiracy Theorists" being much smaller. Is this a subconscious appeal to peoples' suspicions that the official story is a lie? The Hearst-owned _Popular Mechanics_ (_PM_) targeted the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. [1] Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11, which it proclaims can't stand up to the hard facts. 

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. In each case _PM_ describes a conspiracy theorist claim in a paragraph labeled CLAIM and follows it with several paragraphs of debunking labeled FACT. In this critique we examine each of _PM_'s claims in three parts: *PM'S PURPORTED CLAIM:*, which excerpts the key elements of _PM_'s CLAIM paragraph; *PM'S COUNTER CLAIM*, which summarizes _PM_'s debunking of that claim; and *OUR REBUTTAL*, which provides our analysis of _PM_'s argument. 

_PM_ gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Thus it purports to debunk conspiracy theorists' physical-evidence based claims, without even acknowledging that there are other grounds on which to question the official story. Indeed many 9/11 researchers don't even address the physical evidence, preferring instead to focus on who had the the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack. Some of this evidence is summarized at the end of this critique. While ignoring these and many other facts belying the official story, _PM_ attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11. _PM_ groups these claims into four topics, each of which is given a richly-illustrated two- or four-page spread. Since nearly all the physical-evidence-based challenges to the official story fall within one or another of these topics, the article gives the impression that it addresses the breadth of these challenges. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the topic devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition presents three red-herring claims and carefully avoids the most compelling arguments that we (so-called conspiracy theorists) advance to prove that the towers collapsed due to controlled demolitions. [2] 

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of disgracing the memories of the victims, and repeatedly accuses of harassing individuals who responded to the attack. More importantly, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated army that wholly embraces the article's sixteen poisonous claims, which it asserts are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario . In fact, much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation (or straw men). 

(WHAT IS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT?) According to Wikipedia, a free on-line encyclopedia, in the rhetorical context, _straw man_ describes a point of view or creates a bogus claim that can be easily defeated in an argument. The _straw man_ technique does not debate the facts head on, but rather detours around them in order to make the opposing view unbelievable. 

The _Popular Mechanics_ article repeatedly uses the _straw man_ technique by setting up, then disproving, false claims which it asserts are accepted by most or all 9/11 skeptics. In doing so, _PM_ conceals the painstaking work of the 9/11 Truth Movement, replacing it with a lurid caricature. 

The article is perhaps the best example of how the _straw man_ technique has been used to target the 9/11 Truth Movement, but the strategy is not new. We believe that some "researchers" have (wittingly or unwittingly) set up certain claims that are easily knocked down by our critics. 

For example, the idea that holograms, not airplanes, were used to attack the World Trade Center towers, is clearly a bogus claim that 99.9% of all people would call absurd, preposterous and/or outrageous, thereby, turning off the inquisitive neophyte truth seeker from further investigation into what really happened. Persons who surreptitiously set up dummy targets, which can then be knocked down, are guilty of using this _straw man_ tactic. The increasing use of this technique in attacking the 911 Truth Movement is, we believe, an indication of our success in assembling a compelling and meticulously documented case disproving the Official Story. The _Popular Mechanics_ article is a case study in how this deceptive technique is used. 


read all about the debunking here :http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

I'll read your link....


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Since you failed to answer the question I'll post it again.
> 
> Since you know so much about imploding a building why don't you explain in detail what would be involved in imploding the wtc and how this was able to occur without anyone noticing!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...




this post is childish at best


almost 3,000 americans died and all you care about is "winning"?



your in this thread just to try and make yourself look cool, and its pretty sad




and, in drama's defense, why answer a question which is not relevant to the topic at hand at all?

you dont win, unless you count winning at losing as winning


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> His link even likens demolishing a building to chopping down a tree. Didn't he ridicule you earlier for making that analogy?


why thank you for pointing that out doob



care to explain that rick?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> this post is childish at best
> 
> 
> almost 3,000 americans died and all you care about is "winning"?
> ...



um dude, the topic is about the building falling. his question is perfectly legit. you say it was an inside job but you can't explain how. wow.  

and suddenly you care about the people. 



i'm just sitting back watching you all embarrass yourselves now.  



just say "i have no answer".


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> why thank you for pointing that out doob
> 
> 
> 
> care to explain that rick?


it's not relevant.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> it's not relevant.


there is quite a lot in the last 6 or so pages that arent relevant


and man, we have answered that question


every time you ask us how it went down we give you the same answer




*an actual investigation that is not set up to fail, *and they must testify under oath with severe penalties for perjury*


*how is any one of us supposed to know 100% exactly how it all went down without a real investigation


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Nothing is impossible when it comes to media mind control of the weak sheeple, sure it may have taken quite a few people to pull this off, but what if the majority of them came from another country and were only following orders and went back to their own country and no one would believe them even if they said they did it, and certainly no one from the USA would hear about it even if they did slip up and expose themselves. That would only leave a few key people in the US gov't and Military who would have to be in charge to accomplish this. I can't tell anyone HOW exactly the buildings were demo'd, I did not do the deed, any part of my opinion is pure speculation, just as their theories are also.


Bingo. IF the 9/11 attacks were an inside job (and I'm not saying they were, just speculating) then it wouldn't have been that difficult to keep secret at all using foreign workers who don't speak English and wouldn't have access to the news media (to be made aware of the attacks). Give them some rolls of cable and tell them they're upgrading the internet service. How are they going to know the difference? When they're done, ship them back to their country or simply get rid of them so they'll never spill the beans. 

It's not that far-fetched a scenario. Does it really seem that unlikely that Americans would kill other Americans? I mean, it happens every day.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Bingo. IF the 9/11 attacks were an inside job (and I'm not saying they were, just speculating) then it wouldn't have been that difficult to keep secret at all using foreign workers who don't speak English and wouldn't have access to the news media (to be made aware of the attacks). Give them some rolls of cable and tell them they're upgrading the internet service. How are they going to know the difference? When they're done, ship them back to their country or simply get rid of them so they'll never spill the beans.
> 
> It's not that far-fetched a scenario. Does it really seem that unlikely that Americans would kill other Americans? I mean, it happens every day.




why not just hire a bunch of the best workers then kill them all when the job is done?



i thought 1000 badass techs came in and did it all while we were sleeping.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Nothing is impossible when it comes to media mind control of the weak sheeple, sure it may have taken quite a few people to pull this off, but what if the majority of them came from another country and were only following orders and went back to their own country and no one would believe them even if they said they did it, and certainly no one from the USA would hear about it even if they did slip up and expose themselves. That would only leave a few key people in the US gov't and Military who would have to be in charge to accomplish this. I can't tell anyone HOW exactly the buildings were demo'd, I did not do the deed, any part of my opinion is pure speculation, just as their theories are also.


*You can't explain how they were able to implode the WTC in a controlled demolition because its impossible to do.*

The WTC has a huge security team with all the high tech goodies. The controlled demolition theory makes as much sense as a man going to sleep only to wake up the next day and find that someone has stolen his entire house while he was sleeping. The claim is absurd on its face. Why this is not obvious to you is a question for a shrink.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Nothing is impossible when it comes to media mind control of the weak sheeple, sure it may have taken quite a few people to pull this off, but what if the majority of them came from another country and were only following orders and went back to their own country and no one would believe them even if they said they did it, and certainly no one from the USA would hear about it even if they did slip up and expose themselves. That would only leave a few key people in the US gov't and Military who would have to be in charge to accomplish this. I can't tell anyone HOW exactly the buildings were demo'd, I did not do the deed, any part of my opinion is pure speculation, just as their theories are also.



secret foreign workers. you aren't serious are you? 

why not just call Al Qaeda? lol


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> secret foreign workers. you aren't serious are you?
> 
> why not just call Al Qaeda? lol


No man! They were super ninja demolition experts wearing cloaks of invisibility. That's why the dozens of security guards that are there 24/7 and hundreds of cameras couldn't see them hauling in truck loads of explosives.

What, you don't believe in invisible super ninja demolition experts. They advertise in the Yellow Pages.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

9/11 truthers feel they haven't control over their lives. Thier world views are colored by this core problem. 

Most ppl do not feel that way, and is why the 9/11 conspiracy continues to fail to gain any traction with the public. 

9/11 conspiracy is an symptom of the believers deeper malady. One not easily rectified. In a sense, this is all they have to hang on to.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

You guys ONLY have 2 arguments to this whole entire thread. 
#1 "it would have took too many man hours and somebody would *have *to have noticed"
why? why would someone *have *to notice ? As it been stated several times there was work going on in the elevator shafts in the weeks *leading all the way up to 911. *I dont know for sure how it was demolished , but it was. For you to say it is *IMPOSSIBLE *for something like that to go un-noticed, is pure ignorance. there is not too many things in this world that are *impossible!

*#2 we all "need help" for thinking this way...... everyone who questions that piece of shit they call a report "needs help"??
I do need help for my cigg problem , but i also need a "shrink" because i question a commission that questions themselves?

I CARE ABOUT ALL THEM FOLKS THAT DIED , THATS WHY THE FUCK I READ/POST ON THIS THREAD.

LETS JUST MAKE SURE THE "CARING PART" IS LOUD AND CLEAR!

IF YOU DONT WANT A REAL INVESTIGATION THEN YOU DONT GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THAT DAY SO WHY KEEP BLABBING??????


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> um dude, the topic is about the building falling. his question is perfectly legit. you say it was an inside job but you can't explain how. wow.
> 
> and suddenly you care about the people.
> 
> ...


and you KNOW this is BLABBING!


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Yes, it's all about caring today. We let our trust slip away, but not our caring. 

Caring through governmental means always leads to calamity. 

Meanwhile caring about the real "truth" of 9/11 only makes us weaker and encourages our enemy, who actually carried out the attack. They perceive us as feeble minded and divided. This "compassion" in the end gets more innocents killed.

How bout using some good ol' common sense. Chalk one up for Al Queda (whom the 9/11 conspiracy theory pretty much absolves of responsibility). 

In the end, the conspiracy of 9/11 demeans our enemies and assumes they just aren't smart enough to pull it off on their own. They needed the help of the US govt. 

It's ludicrous and only makes ppl seem silly and out of touch.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> and you KNOW this is BLABBING!



actually it was a direct response to a comment made. 


this is why i laugh. once again i have to explain my post.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> this post is childish at best
> 
> 
> almost 3,000 americans died and all you care about is "winning"?
> ...





fdd2blk said:


> um dude, the topic is about the building falling. his question is perfectly legit. you say it was an inside job but you can't explain how. wow.
> 
> and suddenly you care about the people.
> 
> ...























wyteboi said:


> and you KNOW this is BLABBING!







there you go. do you get it now?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> In the end, the conspiracy of 9/11 demeans our enemies and assumes they just aren't smart enough to pull it off on their own. They needed the help of the US govt.


show me your proof on how _they _were smart enough to pull that one off............
remember osama is not even on the FBI list as wanted for 911 ??? WHY NOT? Is he not the lil leader of that lil gang that supposedly done this????????



CrackerJax said:


> It's ludicrous and only makes ppl seem silly and out of touch.


this is my point we are "ludicrous" , "silly" and "out of touch" for questioning a COMMISSION WHO QUESTIONS THEIR OWN REPORT??????????????


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Osama need not be on the FBI wanted list, since the FBI is for domestic law enforcement.

Certainly if Osama moved to Chicago, they would be most happy to pick him up. Osama NOT being on the FBI list proves nothing.

All investigations raise questions, but NO ONE who is CREDIBLE thinks it was an inside job... NO ONE.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> show me your proof on how _they _were smart enough to pull that one off............




STEP 1: fly plane into building


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> All investigations raise questions, but NO ONE who is CREDIBLE thinks it was an inside job... NO ONE.



i did not say the fbi list proves anything what i did say is show me ANY type of proof it was not demo...........show me some proof of how it is impossible to go un-noticed .
I also plainly said i dont know who or why those buildings came down , but its plainly proven waaay beyond a reasonable doubt that it was demo ........... done by al quida ? maybe.... but thats not my field , i do not have the tools nessecary to investigate this by myself.

AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT ALL THOSE THOUSANDS OF SCIENTIST, ENGINEERS, ECT.....and more ECT...... (i posted link WITH NAMES) are NOT CREDIBLE ? 
Thats just ignorance , you have not even looked into ALL the tens of thousands of folks who WANT A REAL INVESTIGATION have you? YOU think this is just me and a couple more potheads on this site? last i checked the statistics were well OVER 50% of america wants a real investigation? Am i wrong? that puts you and your info in the minority catagory does it not?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> STEP 1: fly plane into building



and step 2 ????


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

I need not prove anything. It is you who make the outrageous claims, not I.

Outrageous claims demand outrageous proof. You don't have any.

I can merely point to the video of two planes loaded with jet fuel slamming into two very tall buildings at 500+ mph. 

Your explanation is the one that is entirely convoluted. Not mine....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> show me your proof on how _they _were smart enough to pull that one off............
> remember osama is not even on the FBI list as wanted for 911 ??? WHY NOT? Is he not the lil leader of that lil gang that supposedly done this????????
> 
> 
> ...



you should calm down a little. go smoke a doobie. all the capital letters and repeated punctuation makes you look like you are "ranting".  

a calm, direct response shows the most intelligence.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> and step 2 ????


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you should calm down a little. go smoke a doobie. all the capital letters and repeated punctuation makes you look like you are "ranting".
> 
> a calm, direct response shows the most intelligence.


I will give u that one ! 
As you can see , i am not the most politically correct person u have met and some of my post are kinda "geto" .... so i show the real me, i try not to be "fake" about this subject and use words i have no idea what they mean... thats just me.
Hell if you guys were just going back and forth on ME then i would have lost on page one...........but i have plenty of backup on this one 



wb


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> secret foreign workers. you aren't serious are you?
> 
> why not just call Al Qaeda? lol


You DO realize this "secret foreign worker" scenario has ALREADY played out? Blackwater ring a bell?

Are you a moderator, or a troll, fdd2blk? It seems there must be a fine line between the two, judging from your behavior.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> You DO realize this "secret foreign worker" scenario has ALREADY played out? Blackwater ring a bell?
> 
> Are you a moderator, or a troll, fdd2blk? It seems there must be a fine line between the two, judging from your behavior.





this is politics. NO moderation. guess that makes me a troll. you all make it so easy though. 

i thought this was a game to you.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I will give u that one !
> As you can see , i am not the most politically correct person u have met and some of my post are kinda "geto" .... so i show the real me, i try not to be "fake" about this subject and use words i have no idea what they mean... thats just me.
> Hell if you guys were just going back and forth on ME then i would have lost on page one...........but i have plenty of backup on this one
> 
> ...


There's only one problem with all the back up. The country doesn't share the delusion. 

The country already knows what happened. The vast overwhelming majority have already moved past it. If the 9/11 theories were going to go anywhere, they would have done it already.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

here is a couple thousand cracker.. What give you the right to say these folks are not creditable ?

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

i could just say you are not creditable but i do not know you?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> here is a couple thousand cracker.. What give you the right to say these folks are not creditable ?
> 
> http://patriotsquestion911.com/


they are still simply coming up with an "opinion". their "theory" on what happened. doesn't make it the truth. doesn't make them wrong either. it is up to the individual to weigh out the evidence and make his/her own conclusion. 


unless someone comes out and says "we did it and here are the plans and details on how", then you or i will NEVER really know.


----------



## Radiate (Oct 2, 2009)

Truthers,


If Osama Bin Laden did not actually have anything to do with 911 and is just some sort of decoy/scapegoat for the domestic perpetrators of this crime, why does he have a 2 million dollar bounty on his head from the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association? The attacks he carried out in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam ( the two crimes he is readily identified for on the FBI most wanted list) had nothing to do with planes or aircraft, or either of those two American-based associations for that matter.


Just wondering.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

I love how all the titles are opposites...  "the truthers". Patriotsquestion 9/11.

Opposites are needed because the raw description isn't quite as catchy, or complimentary.

Everyone on those lists is either not qualified to judge, or have an agenda to forward. All stem from their distrust of the Bush Govt. which naturally clouds their judgment.

Like I said, if this conspiracy was going anywhere, it would have shown by now. 

No one buys it except the 9/11 "HATERS" 

There, I slipped in the real title for a change...


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> they are still simply coming up with an "opinion". their "theory" on what happened. doesn't make it the truth. doesn't make them wrong either. it is up to the individual to weigh out the evidence and make his/her own conclusion.
> 
> 
> unless someone comes out and says "we did it and here are the plans and details on how", then you or i will NEVER really know.


 so you agree its not really _delusional _to want another investigation , it is just very hard for _us_ to believe the official report AND very hard for _you guys _to believe the government could have done this to us. thats good i can do that.....
Danm i took ur advise...... Looks like you did too .


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Everyone on those lists is either not qualified to judge, or have an agenda to forward. All stem from their distrust of the Bush Govt. which naturally clouds their judgment.


How could you possibly know this? you know ALL them people?
Agenda? whew..........


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

I liken them to the Global warming crowd.... no different. They stake their reputations upon flimsy or no evidence what so evah.... Perhaps their reputations are already less than stellar. That or they feel protected from retaliation through tenure.

Either way, the list carries no gravitas. It's a list of malcontents and light weights.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I liken them to the Global warming crowd....


Kind of like the "Obama isn't an American" crowd, huh?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

those " light weights" have far more knowledge on this then you and are probably far more educated then you. you are stereotyping ALL those people *just* because the name of the website their on......no more need for you here , wheres rick?
at least he has somewhat of a argument on the matter.


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 2, 2009)

Yeah I just went to check out a bunch of those people cause the way cracker labeled them seemed like a bunch of nuts who made themselves a little web site. Talk about who's credible. I liken cracker to that fish guy trying to convert the non-religious.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Kind of like the "Obama isn't an American" crowd, huh?


This issue is extremely easy to clear up. The only convolution concerning this is the Presidents behavior towards a simple and legal request. There is no comparison between the two, either in size nor veracity.



wyteboi said:


> those " light weights" have far more knowledge on this then you and are probably far more educated then you. you are stereotyping ALL those people *just* because the name of the website their on......no more need for you here , wheres rick?
> at least he has somewhat of a argument on the matter.


OR.... how about that EVERY scientist and engineer which DIDN'T sign on to that list sees it quite differently. 

Using your own logic, your list is MINISCULE...... just like the issue.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

OR how about every other scientist and engineer, just dont give a fuck about the subject... just like yourself ? Is that plausible?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

No, it stands to reason that if they don't give a crap, they have already dismissed YOU.

Like I said, your list is MINISCULE compared to the scientific community. For every engineer you can muster, I can draw upon 50.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

isnt amazing how even though you guys are so absoloutely sure 19 muslims with box cutters managed to take down the united states

the last 3 or so pages of nonsense lacks evidence, no backup


we got fdd trolling, cracker saying a lot but he only posted one link that i saw but from an obviously unreliable source because its already come out popular mechanics modified its data

we got others just saying "its impossible, its impossible"


thats your argument? two words is supposed to null and void 40 or so pages of facts?


litterally laughing out loud

do you come to all debates this unprepared or just the ones on the internet


[youtube]ezIU6ZxYU3A[/youtube] debate


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 2, 2009)

What about the 80,000 or so New Yorkers (including families of 9/11 victims and emergency responders who were THERE on 9/11) who have signed onto the "9/11 truth initiative" to be placed on the NYC ballots this year?

http://www.nyccan.org/index.php

Miniscule number? Hardly.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> For every engineer you can muster, I can draw upon 50.


Terrell E. Arnold, MA - former deputy director of *counter-terrorism AND emergency planning.




I'll wait.....
*


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

oh wait you said "engineer" 

*Fred Robinson * &#8211; licensed architect, state of texas. licensed architect for over 20 years!

start musterin..............


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Since every other engineer is not on your list... you lose.

Like I said multiple times... ur list is TINY. Tiny!! That list represents the % amount of how many actually believe the 9/11 nonsense. 

Tiny.....

So list away, but know that the VAST majority of logical ppl in the country think ur all loose nuts.

The verdict was in a long time ago on the 9/11 "truther" campaign. 

Uhh... the word is FAIL.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

what percentage of americans now question the events?


what is it like 52%, 53% now? im about to go pick up some swishers 


growrebel would you be so kind as to find that number for me


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

You wish... no. The country is not yet that stupid.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You wish... no. The country is not yet that stupid.


youd be suprised


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 2, 2009)

For god's sake, will someone show CrackerJax the link I posted to the 9/11 truth initiative in New York so he'll shut the hell up and go away already? There are 80,000 people backing it. Hardly a tiny number.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

I am almost positive it is 80% or better that question the "report" and over 50% _want _a new investigation and like 20% _demand _a new investigation. now that is a guess but its not off by too far , i just seen it not too long ago on the Mainstream media.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> youd be suprised


Actually, I wouldn't all that surprised.


So let's just take a moment and examine some critical thinking about the psychology and effects of conspiracy thinking, which is hardly new. The topic changes but the believers don't.


*The 5 Steps of Conspiracy Thinking ​
*




This article discusses the depths of conspiracy beliefs. This article was written with 9/11 conspiracy theories in mind, but most parts of the text can be applied to JFK, moon landing or other established conspiracy theories as well. This article is not trying to claim, that there never are any conspiracies.

By conspiracy thinking we mean the following: Support of ideas or theories that accuse a selected group of secretly committing illegal or deceptive actions. Ideas or theories which are hypothetical, speculative, unfounded, irrational, outlandish, have no supporting hard evidence and are not generally accepted. Ideas or theories which are easily falsiable and are contradicted by the huge majority of the scientific community, mathematical calculations, existing hard evidence, Occam's Razor and logic among others. 



Included are 5 steps towards deeper conspiracy thinking, warning signs to consider, and other related material. We have also included relevant quotes from people writing to JREF conspiracy theory subforum. These comments are anonymous, but it doesn&#8217;t affect the message and purpose in any way.


*The 5 Steps*

We have identified five steps towards more and more conspiratorial thinking. It starts with encountering a single claim, and ends with dedicating your life to promoting your theories. With each step the belief and dedication become deeper and with each step getting out of the cycle gets harder.


*Step 1 &#8211; Evaluation of a claim, plausible or not plausible*

When one encounters a new claim, the first thing to do is to evaluate the plausibility of the claim. One might be exposed to something totally new, which sounds very convincing. If the person presenting this claim is highly educated, this might add credibility in ones mind and develop a thought that he might have something. Whether one finds this new claim plausible or not, one might move on to Step 2.

Things that affect the conclusion: 

-Former experience with conspiracy theories (does one recognise what is a conspiracy theory, and know how to critically approach the kind of claims conspiracy theorists make)
-Knowledge of the subject matter (engineer, firefighter)
-Earlier tendency towards conspiracy thinking (already believing in the likes of JFK conspiracy/moon landing fakings)
-Hatred of Bush, his administration or anti-Americanism in general (consciously or unconciously wanting the conspiracy theories to be true, which leads to a less critical approach towards the theories and strengthens the reasons to dislike)
_ 
_
_"I had always enjoyed being skeptical pretty much anything, and as an angst ridden teen, (twenty something actually) government conspiracy's fascinated me, by believing them I felt as if I was smarter than people who believed the official story, and telling people made me feel superior (like Dec 2001, saying the government was behind the attack was a pretty wild thing, and did atcaully make you controversial). I used to read Rense all the time (I considered it the REAL news, and all the MSM stuff was just BS). At that time I would have been 20. So it wasn't really facts that made me a truther, just wanting the be superior. Then I just accepted it and didn&#8217;t' follow it for years, I just assumed the government was lying. __I was totally anti-American, I was of the opinion that the US was the Evil Empire, and everything they did was evil etc. The anti American sentiment coupled with attaching an inflated sense self worth to 'truther' theories (i.e.: I'm so much smarter than these sheeple) is what I think allows the movement so called to continue in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary; albeit in a feeble state."_


_"I actually tilted towards "truther" for a time, swayed by the LIHOP-lite/incompetence stance of "Fahrenheit 9/11". But I was never really spurred into action by any of it. It was fairly easy at the time for an anti-Bush type such as myself to believe that the warning bells that were there (the 8/6/01 PDB, the tip about Muslims at flight schools, the James Woods tip, et cetera) could go unexplored and 9/11 happened because partisan hacks were just sitting on their duffs. That actually seemed plausible."_


_"I also hate Bush. It was very very easy for me to believe that Bush would be involved in such a scheme of murder and deceit. But then I realized, that no matter how much I hate Bush, it is not right for me..or anyone else..to blaim him for deaths that the evidence just doesn't convict him of. Yet..I will admit....that a part of me still does hopes and prays, that someday, some evidence does come out making it clear that Bush had some hand in either making it happen, or allowing it to take place."_


_"It stemmed, I believe, from the ferocious resentment I was harbouring towards Bush and Blair for the pack of lies and manipulation they pushed our way to justify the wars in the Middle East. I'll stress here that this was not "anti-American" feeling. As a Brit and a natural Labour voter I cannot adequately express my hatred for Tony Blair. I'll put GWB in exactly the same class. Then, watching a couple of "Truth" videos that were being discussed on an unrelated forum. This cracked the damn, so to speak. Yes, thought I, those #######'s are well capable of that. I must admit that finally seeing the collapse of WTC7 was shocking."_


_"I wish I had never heard of trutherism which is only motivated by hatred of America."_


*
*
*
*
*Step 2 &#8211; Looking for more evidence - Critical point!*

Initially this is not yet a conspiracy theorist position. One might be believing that this conspiracy could indeed be possible, or one might think that the conspiracy is not possible but wants additional evidence to support this conclusion. Regardless the initial conclusion of Step 1, in this step one is looking for more evidence. 

Things affecting the conclusion:

Availability and approachability of conspiracy debunking material. There has been and still is an overwhelming amount of easily digestible conspiracy material. 

The outcome of this additional research will be one of the following:

_Either *2a*:_
Finding evicence supporting both a conspiracy and a non-conspiracy viewpoints. Evaluating the evidence critically and coming to a non-conspiracy conclusion. Sometimes the lack of complete data can at first lead to a false conclusion of a conspiracy, which is later revised after more data is presented. In either case, the final outcome is a non-conspiracy conclusion.


_Or *2b*:_
Finding more and more evidence supporting the conspiracy conclusion. Not finding, or not interested in other possible explanations. Conspiracy theory getting more and more appealing. Less and less criticism towards various new conspiracy claims. Sometimes in the case of incomplete initial data, if one later finds and critically evaluates more evidence, one might still fairly easily move to Step 2a, even after moving to Step 3 which awaits next.

_"Much investigoogling led (naturally) to finding countless "sources" and I was steaming so much that the ol' brain wasn't in a fit state to realize they were merely recycling the same bilge."_



_"I didn't realize that my statements were contradictory: I admitted that 19 people had hijacked the planes, but I wasn't quite sure about the Pentagon and the Shanksville planes."_

_"I was on Google video, I had a whole library of Conspiracy movies to watch for free. I literally spent 2 weeks watching what I thought was a worldwide conspiracy being unveiled before my very eyes." _

_"In the search for truth we can't be expected to get the right answers the first time. For me it was simply a rational conclusion based on an unknown lack of complete data. Once the missing data was provided, the conclusion changed. What DOES scare me are the people, who are given this missing data and continue to withhold a belief that could not possibly be correct." 
_
_
_






*Step 3 &#8211; Believing in a conspiracy*

Believing there indeed was a conspiracy. Reinforcing this belief by finding more and more supporting evidence. Less and less openness to opposing viewpoints. After this point Step 4 is getting very close.


*Step 4 &#8211; Promoting the conspiracy theory*

Spreading the word. Telling friends. Wanting to share the information you have just uncovered. Participation in discussion forums, maybe attending events, handing out material. Thinking the opposition is plain wrong. Believing there has to be some kind of a conspiracy, no matter what evidence is put forward. Enthusianism rises. Feeling of importance. Thinking to have discovered something nobody else sees or understands. More and more dedication. Usually not admitting any mistakes.

A person at this stage may appear willing to change his/her mind if certain important points are solved, but in reality changing sides at this point is quite rare (but fortunately still possible).

_"I felt like I had discovered something HUGE!! Something that made me part of history. I felt like...a revolutionary. Like someone who could help change the world. And then..I woke up to the boring truth._
_But, until the evidence proves it, I am no truther. "_


_"I began talking to family and friends about what I had seen. I showed my friends some of the videos, none__ of them are debunkers or physicists, and so they even started to get fired up too. I remember it being a feeling that our government had betrayed its people, killed 3,000 of them, and then covered it up, so I was going to help. In some way I wanted to take part in righting this wrong that was somehow my fault. I felt that by me not caring, that I was somewhat responsible for letting a criminal government get out of hand and kill 3,000 people."_

*Step 5 &#8211; Conspiracy theories affecting daily life*

Putting the reputations and careers on the line, maybe losing jobs or relationships. Almost no way of turning back. Everything is invested in the conspiracy. Denial of all opposing viewpoints.

Many of the current leading figures of the truth movement are currently at this stage.


​
*Warning Signs*

There are many warning signs indicating that your critical thinking may be in danger. Consider the following. If any of these sings are found, one has to seriously reconsider their position.

-*The experts on your side seem to be plain wrong on many details, but you still support other parts of their research, because these parts of their work support your views.*
-*Thinking you are now able to see through the entire plot, wondering why almost nobody else can.
-Being overly enthusiastic about the subject.
-Refusing to critically go through what the other side is presenting.
-Ignoring and forgetting unpleasant evidence.
-Thinking the perpetrators leave clues and you can solve it all in the internet.
-Thinking you have all the facts and need no further research, thinking your mind is set.
-Thinking every participant would be silent, every media controlled.
-After being thoroughly debunked in one detail, moving on to the next detail without re-considering your position.
-Not believing in the original detail that made you belive in a conspiracy, but having found other reasons along the way, that still make you believe in a conspiracy.
-Not being able to understand the details your belief is based on (example: Claiming thermite, but not knowing how it works).
-Having very strong disregard for any opposition.
-Thinking the governments are evil. Not trusting anything that contradicts your belief, because everything is somehow related to or controlled by the government.
-Believing in events that are very unorthodox or unique only to a conspiracy theory. (examples: Weakening the structure with explosives for an hour before a controlled demolition, Thermite being used to bring down buildings)
-Avoiding answering to questions.
-Basing your beliefs on the events following the attacks (examples: They lied about the WMD&#8217;s so they must be lying about everything, They did it to justify two wars).* 

 

*Criticism Without Conspiracies*

Being critical of something does not automatically mean you have to believe in a conspiracy. You can be critical of the way things were handled after the events. You can be critical of the wars. You can criticize all the actions of the administration. All that, and it doesn&#8217;t require you believing in any conspiracy theory.

A common misbelief is, that all those who oppose conspiracy theorist are &#8220;Bush lovers&#8221; or &#8220;Government apologists&#8221;. An unofficial poll revealed, that only 50% of the people who actively participate in opposing the truth movement in the JREF discussion forum (so called debunkers) are from the U.S. The rest are from all around the world. Why would all these people be apologists to government not even their own? Why would they all love Bush? You don&#8217;t have to like Bush in order to accept the evidence that doesn&#8217;t support any conspiracy theories.


*Things to Consider*

Here are a couple of points for conspiracy believers to consider.

If the attacks were so incredibly complicated and successful, why did they make the following incredible mistakes:

-They did not frame the citizens of the invaded countries.
-They did not plant WMD's where nobody was watching, but were supposedly able to carry out incredible events with everybody watching.

If you find youself getting around or ignoring these important questions without re-considering your position, that is a warning sign of self-deception.

_"Nowadays looking back, the feeling is mostly embarrassment, especially as the whole business flared and died in a matter of a couple of months and I should really have had the wit to notice that I was getting much too excited, too quickly, about the whole 9/11 "truth" business. That's never a healthy sign. But it highlights very strongly (again) for me that the power of self-deception is very strong in the human race."_


Another thing to consider, why does it seem that nobody listens? Why is there no greater global opposition towards the explanations of the events? Could it be that you could be wrong, after all?

And very important: Are my actions and beliefs profitable to someone? Am I giving money out? Am I buying many books with essentially the same content that is found on any conspiracy website? Why do I buy this material, if I know everything that is in it by heart?

And finally. Are my beliefs based on evidence or faith? Would I change sides, if certain issues were solved with supporting evidence? Is any proof enough? Are the issues that I want to get solved realistic?

Examples of unrealistic issues: 
-Wanting videos of every hijacker boarding in order to believe they existed.
-Wanting to know exactly every single detail of every single event of the day.
-Wanting every single piece of evidence collected to be released.
-Wanting an entirely new investigation.

As long as these don&#8217;t take place, one can very easily claim that there are unanswered questions, and continue one&#8217;s conspiratorial beliefs. One must recognize which demands really are realistic.


*Closing Words*

You have to be very careful with material that sounds exiting, but you have no previous experience with. Because once you take the first wrong step, it is very easy to convince yourself with further evidence supporting the wrong conclusion, while all the time twisting all the evidence that doesn't.

And this can happen to anyone regardless of education, age, IQ, or any other demographic. But one can get over it, even if having once fallen for some or even all of it.
_ 
_
_"Nowadays, I'm still learning, but I strongly fight trutherism as it has the same ways of arguing like Shoah denialism: pissing on victims' graves, pissing on psychological victims, spreading lies, and wanting to open a "debate" in order to spew their hatred of thoughts shared by a majority of people, just because it was a majority."_


_"Now I feel embarrassed. I will see people who I haven't seen in years, and they still think I believe that...sadly some of them do now, because of me. So now I try to educate people in Real life, and clown CTists on the Internets for lulz."
_

_ 
_
_"I expressed some opinions in JREF forum and received some slaps in the face (some tactful, some not) with good plain information. But - having a good scientific background - I was able to see that at least some of the tripe I was pushing was just flat wrong. This gave pause for serious thought. Plus, here and elsewhere, I was beginning to find links to the debunking sites. Of course a lot of this could have been avoided simply by putting "9/11" +"debunk" into Google in the first place, but I suppose the desire to believe in something wacky can lead one astray."_

_"After the nausea passed, I was just pissed! I couldn't believe I had been lied to and at the expense of 3,000 dead victims. I had to walk in a room in front of my friends and admit that I had been duped, and that's a crappy feeling man... real crappy. I'd rather feel crappy than blindly accuse victims or victims' family members of being murderers."
_





 And this applies to other conspiracy theories as well.

_"The only conspiracy I ever believed, was the JFK one. But after finding out how the 9/11 conspiracy theories 'work' (ie, how 'proof' is found etc.) I concluded that the JFK conspiracies work the same way, and stopped believing in them after reading up on them on these boards, and also after watching a BBC documentary reconstructing how the magic bullet did in fact not traverse a magical path (had to do with the arrangement of the seats, ie. frontseat sat lower and more to the middle.) "_


Let me close by quoting the excellent words of this man, whose thoughts were posted in a related discussion thread. I have translated this part from another language, so the wording may not be exact, but the meaning gets trough. Read it with thought.

_ "I used to believe in the truth movement. Now that I no longer believe in any of that, it's quite easy to recognize the common trends in their thinking._

_In a nutshell, what takes place is an almost complete collapse of critical thinking, accompanied by extremely selective use of evidence. In the background there is a pleasing conclusion (you want it to be true for emotional or ideological reasons) and then you fit the facts to go with the predetermined conclusion._

_As a natural scientist and a believer in my ability to think critically, it is still hard for me to accept that I had adopted the abovementioned features. But a cold fact is, it is surprisingly easy to do that. Especially when taking into account the huge machine, that the "truth movement" has evolved into, and how easily and convincingly the events of this kind can be fit into the most peculiar theories. The fact that there are many professors and "authorities" belonging to this group also helps lowering the standards of one's own critical thinking._

_Even in scientific experiments that are performed in a laboratory there are things that cannot be explained. And this is in conditions, where all the variables are as controlled as possible. Taking into account the nature of 9/11, it would be a miracle, if there were not &#8220;oddities&#8221; or partly unexplained things. Thus, there will never be a &#8220;theory&#8221; that would explain all the minor details. We must accept the one, which can in sufficient detail explain the events by using and respecting the scientific method."_


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

oh yea he is gonna say 80,000 is nothing compared to the ones that dont believe the shit( with NO evidence).......Just like he said he would give me 50 engineers who dont believe it to my one who does ? (he skipped that post too)

still waiting.....


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> So let's just take a moment and examine some critical thinking about the psychology and effects of conspiracy thinking, which is hardly new. The topic changes but the believers don't.


You sure changed the subject real quick


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth




[youtube]ssuAMNas1us[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> so you agree its not really _delusional _to want another investigation , it is just very hard for _us_ to believe the official report AND very hard for _you guys _to believe the government could have done this to us. thats good i can do that.....
> Danm i took ur advise...... Looks like you did too .


wow, i said that?



wrong.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Well, I won't clutter this thread with the VERY EASY job of debunking the 9/11 nonsense. I'll throw it on my thread.

By the way Wyteboi, you seem to be at level 4 .. careful.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

if you're so convinced you are right, then where is your investigation? 

nobody cares dude, that's why you are on rollitup crying about it.  


cool to see you figured out how to link a youtube vid. baaaaahhhh












Keenly said:


> isnt amazing how even though you guys are so absoloutely sure 19 muslims with box cutters managed to take down the united states
> 
> the last 3 or so pages of nonsense lacks evidence, no backup
> 
> ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> What about the 80,000 or so New Yorkers (including families of 9/11 victims and emergency responders who were THERE on 9/11) who have signed onto the "9/11 truth initiative" to be placed on the NYC ballots this year?
> 
> http://www.nyccan.org/index.php
> 
> Miniscule number? Hardly.



who cares? what did it get them?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> who cares? what did it get them?


who cares? are you serious? if you dont care then why are you posting

troll troll troll troll no facts no evidence no graphs charts or interviews

have you nothing to contribute to this thread?


your welcome to your opinion, or lack thereof, but you, nor anyone else will ever stop me from telling people about this until a real investigation is esablished


so go ahead, keep trying to discourage me, its just wasted time


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> what percentage of americans now question the events?
> 
> 
> what is it like 52%, 53% now? im about to go pick up some swishers
> ...



no one asked me. got a link to your source? come on, it's gotta be on youtube somewhere.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> For god's sake, will someone show CrackerJax the link I posted to the 9/11 truth initiative in New York so he'll shut the hell up and go away already? There are 80,000 people backing it. Hardly a tiny number.



you're fingers broken?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I am almost positive it is 80% or better that question the "report" and over 50% _want _a new investigation and like 20% _demand _a new investigation. now that is a guess but its not off by too far , i just seen it not too long ago on the Mainstream media.



you can't find a simple # and you want me to listen to any of this nonsense? you're pretty committed to your cause, eh?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> oh yea he is gonna say 80,000 is nothing compared to the ones that dont believe the shit( with NO evidence).......Just like he said he would give me 50 engineers who dont believe it to my one who does ? (he skipped that post too)
> 
> still waiting.....




you're just spilling with it yourself.

youtube, run!!!!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> who cares? are you serious? if you dont care then why are you posting
> 
> troll troll troll troll no facts no evidence no graphs charts or interviews
> 
> ...



you're as much of a troll as i am. read your post. 

what were you, 10 when this happened?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

according to wiki's record of the poll
*
was there a cover up?*

42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure



*building 7*

43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure


*new investigation*

45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Well, I won't clutter this thread with the VERY EASY job of debunking the 9/11 nonsense. I'll throw it on my thread.
> 
> By the way Wyteboi, you seem to be at level 4 .. careful.


The fuck is a level 4 ? So you said you would provide 50 engineers and you couldnt do it and just dont care about 911 so why are you in this thread then? I have done NOTHING out of line on this website..... just because i am willing to argue the 911 truth, makes me WRONG ? Go look at all my post on this website and you will see how "caring and helpful" i am to others! level 4  I guess that means i am gettin banned...... O'well if your gonna kick me out cause of my believes then i guess i went out the way mama told me to.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> according to wiki's record of the poll
> *
> was there a cover up?*
> 
> ...







is that a poll that you log on and vote? 


or did they physical ask different people?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Ahhh, then you didn't even bother to read your psych profile? 

At level 4, I'm not surprised. Your right on schedule.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> The fuck is a level 4 ? So you said you would provide 50 engineers and you couldnt do it and just dont care about 911 so why are you in this thread then? I have done NOTHING out of line on this website..... just because i am willing to argue the 911 truth, makes me WRONG ? Go look at all my post on this website and you will see how "caring and helpful" i am to others! level 4  I guess that means i am gettin banned...... O'well if your gonna kick me out cause of my believes then i guess i went out the way mama told me to.


how the fuck would cracker ban you? 

shows how paranoid you all really are. hahahahahahahhahahaha


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

why dont we talk about how the head of the EPA came out on television saying "the air is safe to breathe"

and now thousands of bystanders and first responders are dying because the air was, in fact, not safe to breathe


the government is refusing to aid these dying people with medical costs, even though their "mistake" costs the lives of many, and the number increases daily


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1855050994689354420&ei=2WfGSsWOMKfuqAPByrWNBg&q=9/11+the+air+was+safe&hl=en&client=firefox-a#


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Ahhh, then you didn't even bother to read your psych profile?
> 
> At level 4, I'm not surprised. Your right on schedule.



dude, i think we need to stop now, they are starting to JUMP.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Wait FDD, let me give it a try!


MMMmmMMMMmmmMMMm .... MmmmmMMmmmm... BANNED!!! *Ur BANNED!!*


----------



## Keenly (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Wait FDD, let me give it a try!
> 
> 
> MMMmmMMMMmmmMMMm .... MmmmmMMmmmm... BANNED!!! *Ur BANNED!!*


lol


its actually pretty funny


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

*Engineers and computer scientists at Purdue University* have created the first scientifically accurate visualization of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Even though it is an animation it is still intensely engrossing.



[youtube]8vmIGGKvIms[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

i say we just start going to youtube.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 2, 2009)

sorry i dont know what the fuck a level 4 is. like i said why are you in this thread ? You cant even back up your own statements. I am also sorry i get worked up over this subject ..... and you all have NO feelings or just hide them like normal internet bullys. I sure in the fuck dont see you pickin on NO or GR simply because they can "outword" you..
Cracker your just too danm stubborn/ignorant to accept it and fdd.....IMO i believe you KNOW the truth and just like fuckin with us for fun.



you guys are runnin me out too quick, i am gonna need a couple of 1k's for this thread.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> sorry i dont know what the fuck a level 4 is. like i said why are you in this thread ? You cant even back up your own statements. I am also sorry i get worked up over this subject ..... and you all have NO feelings or just hide them like normal internet bullys. I sure in the fuck dont see you pickin on NO or GR simply because they can "outword" you..
> Cracker your just too danm stubborn/ignorant to accept it and fdd.....IMO i believe you KNOW the truth and just like fuckin with us for fun.
> 
> 
> ...



can i honestly ask why everyone keeps telling me what I think? 

i will tell you what i think, and i have. i think you all are wrong. i am not trolling. i am posting my feelings just like everyone else. i don't need to find a link to some vid or some smart guys opinion. i am NOT a sheep in the herd of TRUTHERS. i am me and i feel what i feel. 

fucking taliban flew some fucking planes into those buildings. fuck if they didn't fall down. 

now if i want to sit here all day and defend this then i can. i should NOT be called a troll for it simply because i am not on your "side". my rights are the same as yours. 




i have 20 hours of video tapes, on VHS no less, recorded off of my TV from that day and the days following. you're all welcome to come over and watch, since half of you were on the PLAYGROUND when it happened.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

there was a program on a few weeks back. a few photographers had video of that day. they put it all together into a couple hour program. all kinds of stuff from "ground zero" as it happened. after the program they had sit down interviews with the people who shot the video. one lady sat and looked directly into the camera and said "no one really jumped from those buildings. i was there and it didn't happen."


----------



## hom36rown (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i have 20 hours of video tapes, on VHS no less, recorded off of my TV from that day and the days following. you're all welcome to come over and watch, since half of you were on the PLAYGROUND when it happened.


Lol, seriously! I remember that day perfectly. I woke up late for school as usual, I'm pretty sure it was a tuesday. My dad was not at work for some reason, and he was watching the news, I asked him what happened and he said 'world war fuckin 3 just started" lol. I can replay the whole day in my head...trippy.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Lol, seriously! I remember that day perfectly. I woke up late for school as usual, I'm pretty sure it was a tuesday. My dad was not at work for some reason, and he was watching the news, I asked him what happened and he said 'world war fuckin 3 just started" lol. I can replay the whole day in my head...trippy.




i was at worrk and my boss wouldn't let me go home. this is why my wife recorded it all for me. hours and hours of live footage right after it all happened.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Osama need not be on the FBI wanted list, since the FBI is for domestic law enforcement.
> 
> Certainly if Osama moved to Chicago, they would be most happy to pick him up. Osama NOT being on the FBI list proves nothing.
> 
> All investigations raise questions, but NO ONE who is CREDIBLE thinks it was an inside job... NO ONE.



CJ you might want to check the facts before you speak. The FBI is used when a federal law is broken, it has no bearing on whether you were in the country at the time or not. With that being said Osama Bin Laden is most definitely on the list, only he is wanted for the USS Cole attacks, not the WTC attacks. He is a patsy.

Plenty of credible people think there was something fishy going on, just because you say they are not credible has no bearing on the fact.

WHO DID IT? DId the people the FBI and CIA say did it do it? well did they? do you think all the names they listed were the actual perpetrators?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i was at worrk and my boss wouldn't let me go home. this is why my wife recorded it all for me. hours and hours of live footage right after it all happened.


I saw everything unfold on 2 TV's, I did not work that day. The very second the first tower came down I turned to my then wife and said" Why the fuck would they blow up the buildings"?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I saw everything unfold on 2 TV's, I did not work that day. The very second the first tower came down I turned to my then wife and said" Why the fuck would they blow up the buildings"?




good for you.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 2, 2009)

[youtube]isTGuaaln9A[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I saw everything unfold on 2 TV's, I did not work that day. The very second the first tower came down I turned to my then wife and said" Why the fuck would they blow up the buildings"?


i thought bush did it so we could go to war. of you knew then that something was up you would have clearly known this.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i thought bush did it so we could go to war. of you knew then that something was up you would have clearly known this.


I never said that. You're straw man attempts aren't working FDD, go back to Ad Hominum you are better at insults.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 2, 2009)

No ... you are mopping up the floor clearing out all the disinformation they are trying to  Thanks so much for putting up that piece on PM ... notice Crack didn't come back on it ... know why? ... because he can't 

Keenly here's another poll ... it's on youtube, but there is a list of places that conducted polls and the majority is on our side ... we have proved that time and time again on this thread. They simply can't accept the facts ... so they play  ... that's their MO.

911 Polls - You Are Not Alone
[youtube]nlPweD6R3Cc[/youtube]
This was posted by in 2007 ... I have more recent polls already posted in the thread, but if I find more I will put them up, just like they keep flooding the thread with disinformation we have to do the same with the facts.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

GR is deep in the rabbit hole of denial. Level 5.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> GR is deep in the rabbit hole of denial. Level 5.



Hey CJ, how many levels are there? And was it really made by a rabbit?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

There are only 5 levels, so that's bad news for GR. 

Rabbits did make the hole but they left a long time ago, to get away from the "neighbors".


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 2, 2009)

This is just plain ridiculous. Nothing but the same old saws being stated over and over and over and over.

Get a clue guys, we all know there are a small group of nuts that make claims about this. Repeating these claims over and over does not support the claim it only restates it. I mean good lord a 5 year old can see that.

The same thing goes for stating that other people are calling for an investigation. This proves nothing except that you are not the only idiot on planet Earth. Of this I have no doubt. Why keep repeating this when it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

There is one point that absolutely blows the conspiracy theory out of the water.

Controlled demolition of buildings is a precise science. Imploding the WTC would have been a massive job that requires extensive preparation of the entire building. The WTC was bombed once before in the 90s. After this, extensive security measures were put into place. In addition, there are thousands of people all over the WTC every day and probably dozens of janitors at night. There is no possible way that a demolition crew would have been able to plant the hundreds or thousands of charges needed to implode a building scientifically.

It is not logically valid to insist there was a controlled demolition unless you can explain how this was possible. You can not simply make an outrageous claim and then say "I can't explain how they managed the impossible but they did." It should be clear by the most simple logic one can employ that this doesn't make sense.

Again I will reiterate that imploding a building is a very precise science that requires the coordination of numerous charges placed at strategic points throughout the building. Smuggling in a couple big bombs is not a plausible method for imploding a building - that just isn't how its done and there are numerous sources for this information. Likewise, if you asked any demolition expert they would certainly tell you that crashing a jumbo jet into the building would certainly screw up the precise nature of the demolition.

On its face the controlled demolition theory that is central to the larger theory is clearly not plausible. The question to be asking is why a person looks at something that is clearly not plausible and says "I can't explain why its wrong but I know that it is."

Another fatal flaw in the theory is the issue of the airplanes. The planes belonged to private companies and there were hundreds of people on them. Do you think United airlines who admits that their airplane was one that hit the towers just went along with this conspiracy for shits and giggles? You know this event bankrupted the two airlines and seriously hurt the entire industry. Why would they agree to do such a thing? Also, what happened to the people on the planes? Were they abducted by space aliens?

Another fatal flaw is that no reporter has been able to dig up anything to support this theory. Clinton couldn't even get a blow job without the whole damn world finding out about it and he is the president. How the hell is it possible that there is a monumentally complex conspiracy involving thousands of people and nobody blew the whistle or slipped up? Wouldn't you think someone would find something on paper or on a computer disk somewhere or that someone would come foreword? None of the thousands of air traffic controllers watching the every move of every plane in the sky saw anything out of the ordinary? Are they all part of the conspiracy? We know for a fact which planes hit the WTC and from where they came, who exactly flew these planes into the towers if not terrorists?

Each one of the questions above is a huge gaping hole in the conspiracy theory. Any one of them is sufficient to demonstrate how absurd this whole business is. Combined they are sufficient so that no rational person can ignore them.


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> No ... you are mopping up the floor clearing out all the disinformation they are trying to  Thanks so much for putting up that piece on PM ... notice Crack didn't come back on it ... know why? ... because he can't
> 
> Keenly here's another poll ... it's on youtube, but there is a list of places that conducted polls and the majority is on our side ... we have proved that time and time again on this thread. They simply can't accept the facts ... so they play  ... that's their MO.
> 
> ...


I love how that plastic bitch from Fox speaks. It amazes me on how such biased "disinformation" is being spread on national television. Its sad when people can't think for themselves. There is no God.

GWB is an evil scumbag who is responsible for millions of innocent deaths all across the globe. He had the ability to help the innocent in darfur, instead he went for greed and "saved" an oil rich country. 
Energy crisis. Reccesion. GWB sr. Cheney. Need I say more?

You want to know where your money is? In the eastern world, and it's either killing people or drilling for oil, either way were fucked.

You want to know where your jobs are? Again, in the east, simply because our government was too "pre-occupied" killing our brothers and sisters.

Anyone who denies 911 being in someway "rigged" is delirious and ignorant. Its a hard thing to swallow, but just like a big assed multivitamin it will do you some good.

*The American people did not cause 9/11. So who did?

*moral of the story? you can never know just how deep shit river runs. If you do not believe the government could pull off such a "controlled demolition" then you are just plain foolhardy. If you do not believe the government could gain access to "privately owned jets" then again, you have another thing coming. the government had access to more money than any of us can dream of. Do not underestimate the power of power. 

Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Lennon, Kennedy... Need I go on?
Nahh


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 2, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> No ... you are mopping up the floor clearing out all the disinformation they are trying to  Thanks so much for putting up that piece on PM ... notice Crack didn't come back on it ... know why? ... because he can't
> 
> Keenly here's another poll ... it's on youtube, but there is a list of places that conducted polls and the majority is on our side ... we have proved that time and time again on this thread. They simply can't accept the facts ... so they play  ... that's their MO.
> 
> ...


Why do you make posts that do nothing to strengthen your argument? See the following fallacy.

*Description of Appeal to Belief*


Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern: 
Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true. 
There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license. 
There are also cases in which what people believe actually determines the truth of a claim. For example, the truth of claims about manners and proper behavior might simply depend on what people believe to be good manners and proper behavior. Another example is the case of community standards, which are often taken to be the standards that most people accept. In some cases, what violates certain community standards is taken to be obscene. In such cases, for the claim "x is obscene" to be true is for most people in that community to believe that x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs. 
See also Appeal to Popularity. *Examples of Appeal to Belief*


At one time, most people in Europe believed that the earth was the center of the solar system (at least most of those who had beliefs about such things). However, this belief turned out to be false. 
God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God. 
Of course there is nothing wrong with drinking. Ask anyone, he'll tell you that he thinks drinking is just fine.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I never said that. You're straw man attempts aren't working FDD, go back to Ad Hominum you are better at insults.



guess i was mistaken. sorry.


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> can i honestly ask why everyone keeps telling me what I think?
> 
> i will tell you what i think, and i have. i think you all are wrong. i am not trolling. i am posting my feelings just like everyone else. i don't need to find a link to some vid or some smart guys opinion. i am NOT a sheep in the herd of TRUTHERS. i am me and i feel what i feel.
> 
> ...


isn't this called ignorance?^^^

you know I cried that day, and I'm Canadian. Do you know why I cried? Because i saw this coming, maybe not that exact situation but i knew something horrific was coming. the U.S. government never knows when to stop. 

Take all the raids on medical marijuana in Kali for instance.

Yes, this is the same federal government responsible for the 9/11 deaths, does that shock you? If it does then you are a fool. No if, ands or buts.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> isn't this called ignorance?^^^
> 
> you know I cried that day, and I'm Canadian. Do you know why I cried? Because i saw this coming, maybe not that exact situation but i knew something horrific was coming. the U.S. government never knows when to stop.
> 
> ...



yup, dumb as a rock i am.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> isn't this called ignorance?^^^
> 
> you know I cried that day, and I'm Canadian. Do you know why I cried? Because i saw this coming, maybe not that exact situation but i knew something horrific was coming. the U.S. government never knows when to stop.
> 
> ...


saw it coming and did what?

probably why you cried.


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> yup, dumb as a rock i am.


Did I say that?
Dont be puttin words in my mouth boy

If you had even a cunt hair of intelligence you would recognize that a fool is not necessarily "dumb as a rock" as you put it, but rather is just someone who is fooled easily.

I dont think I can put it much fucking simpler than that



fdd2blk said:


> saw it coming and did what?
> 
> *probably why you cried.*


*You damn right *thats why I cried. I watched my brothers and sisters die that day and for what?
If only I had the same power as the president.

If only....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> Did I say that?
> Dont be puttin words in my mouth boy
> 
> If you had even a cunt hair of intelligence you would recognize that a fool is not necessarily "dumb as a rock" as you put it, but rather is just someone who is fooled easily.
> ...



you saw it coming the whole time and just sat by and watched. what were you eating? 



are you so unsure of your response that you have to fill it with insults? or is that just how you present yourself? lol


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you saw it coming the whole time and just sat by and watched. what were you eating?


you are pathetic. If you want to go toe to toe *like a man* then I am right here waiting. But if you are going to be a child then I have better things to do.

You must be a recreational... i can feel it in your words.

why dont you leave the medicine for the sick and run off and play POGS?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> you are pathetic. If you want to go toe to toe *like a man* then I am right here waiting. But if you are going to be a child then I have better things to do.
> 
> You must be a recreational... i can feel it in your words.
> 
> why dont you leave the medicine for the sick and run off and play POGS?


you say man to man, then call me names like a little school girl. lol  

let it all out, my friend. let it all out.


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you say man to man, then call me names like a little school girl. lol
> 
> let it all out, my friend. let it all out.


 I don't call names, I speak truth.
*
Buck up or shut the fuck up.*

I'm giving you a chance to be a man. every post I have read of yours is drivel. I dont give two shits that you are "staff". it most likely just means you have nothing better to do with your time than act like a hot shot infront of a bunch of teenage stoners.

Is this the only place people take you seriously FDD?

HA

p.s. what exactly did I call you to hurt your feelings? and shit, if I am making personal attacks than ban my ass!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> I don't call names, I speak truth.
> *
> Buck up or shut the fuck up.*
> 
> ...



please show me where you hurt my feelings.

we'll start there, sir.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> you are pathetic. If you want to go toe to toe *like a man* then I am right here waiting. But if you are going to be a child then I have better things to do.
> 
> You must be a recreational... i can feel it in your words.
> 
> why dont you leave the medicine for the sick and run off and play POGS?





guess i'm man enough for you. 




you want a youtube link you can dispute or something? i'm here speaking on behalf of me. why is that not allowed?


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> please show me where you hurt my feelings.
> 
> we'll start there, sir.


haha, wow!

*That was too easy.
*
it was a pleasure to rip your balls off and show how small they are to everyone.

Maybe we can do it again

LMAO


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> *Engineers and computer scientists at Purdue University* have created the first scientifically accurate visualization of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Even though it is an animation it is still intensely engrossing.
> 
> 
> 
> [youtube]8vmIGGKvIms[/youtube]











this is a video from pur fucking due U, put together by some silly engineers. it clearly shows where these mysterious "cut off beams" came from. not ONE person even acknowledge my posting. i mean it is only purdue. 



carry on.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> haha, wow!
> 
> *That was too easy.
> *
> ...






you're user name is hella long. that's all i've gotten from you. everything else so far has been ignored as dribble. it was the childish insults that led me to laugh you off from square one. that and the fact you saw all this coming and chose not to do a thing about it.


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you're user name is hella long. that's all i've gotten from you. everything else so far has been ignored as dribble. it was the childish insults that led me to laugh you off from square one. that and the fact you saw all this coming and chose not to do a thing about it.



My user name is hella long?

WTF?

stay on topic boy.


I like to debate with intelligence.. So run along please, there are adults with intelligent things to say


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> My user name is hella long?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> ...


once again, nothing but name calling. you walked in spewing insults and haven't shut up since. 


troll


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> this is a video from pur fucking due U, put together by some silly engineers. it clearly shows where these mysterious "cut off beams" came from. not ONE person even acknowledge my posting. i mean it is only purdue.
> 
> 
> 
> carry on.





Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> My user name is hella long?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> ...







did you even watch it?


funny you chose to insult other than STAY ON TOPIC. who's stupid?


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> did you even watch it?
> 
> 
> funny you chose to insult other than STAY ON TOPIC. who's stupid?


haha, is calling you a boy an insult? You must be younger than I thought.

anyways... You can go on living your lie. i dont give a shit really. I know the truth, and apparently more Americans than i thought also know the truth (or rather they know the lies).

Give up, your pride is worth nothing here. only truth is worth something. Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 2, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> this is a video from pur fucking due U, put together by some silly engineers. it clearly shows where these mysterious "cut off beams" came from. not ONE person even acknowledge my posting. i mean it is only purdue.
> 
> 
> 
> carry on.


I saw it, makes as much sense as any theory I have heard, still doesn't explain WTC building #7.


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 3, 2009)

You like to believe what is on the surface FDD. Its easier that way eh? dig deep. step back. Take a good hard look.






...




Admit you are wrong

Goodnight Y'all


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I saw it, makes as much sense as any theory I have heard, still doesn't explain WTC building #7.


i appreciate your comment.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> You like to believe what is on the surface FDD. Its easier that way eh? dig deep. step back. Take a good hard look.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



otherwise you'll just insult me. 





[youtube]1QP-SIW6iKY[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

Some Ironic PUN About Pot said:


> haha, is calling you a boy an insult? You must be younger than I thought.
> 
> anyways... You can go on living your lie. i dont give a shit really. I know the truth, and apparently more Americans than i thought also know the truth (or rather they know the lies).
> 
> Give up, your pride is worth nothing here. only truth is worth something. Welcome to the 21st century.



you have not insulted me, you have tried though. if you can not admit that your comments were meant as insults then it's you that's the boy.


----------



## The Warlord (Oct 3, 2009)

I liked this thread better when it was closed.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 3, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> this is a video from pur fucking due U, put together by some silly engineers. it clearly shows where these mysterious "cut off beams" came from. not ONE person even acknowledge my posting. i mean it is only purdue.
> 
> 
> 
> carry on.


I would have to say , yes that could explain _some _of the "cut beams" but i dont think the jet went down this far?





wb


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I saw it, makes as much sense as any theory I have heard, still doesn't explain WTC building #7.



This is flawed reasoning. As the psychologists will tell you, when 3/4 of the picture can be explained, but 1/4 cannot, it doesn't mean the 3/4 is false.

It doesn't mean that instead of the very obvious truth of the 3/4, we then come up with an entirely new picture, which then disregards the previous 3/4ths.

So not being completely satisfied with WT7, doesn't mean the rest didn't happen, and it isn't a valid gap from which one can insert a conspiracy.

I think you have stopped looking for answers which don't fit your perspective. 

WT 7.....

The &#8220;mysterious&#8221; collapse of Building 7. 

How do you think that the alleged conspirators knew that Building 7 would be hit by pieces of Tower 1 which would set it on fire? They would have to know this beforehand in order to set the mysterious explosive charges that allegedly demolished the building. Why did they wait 5 hours while the fires burned before they set off these alleged charges, and how did these so called explosive charges or thermite withstand the fires for 5 hours without igniting and burning off? The NIST computer models show steel beams buckling, sagging floors and disconnection of the beams from the columns and finally failure of one key column which started the global collapse, all from the heat of the fires expanding the long span steel and breaking the bolted shear connections in Building 7.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I would have to say , yes that could explain _some _of the "cut beams" but i dont think the jet went down this far?
> 
> View attachment 569155
> 
> ...




a lot of shit fell. do you really think that is a ground level beam sticking out of all the debri? that could be from anywhere. even from one of the upper floors.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 3, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I would have to say , yes that could explain _some _of the "cut beams" but i dont think the jet went down this far?
> 
> View attachment 569155
> 
> ...


OK Einstein listen carefully. Do you see that rescue worker standing there in that picture? Do you know that there were people buried under the rubble? Do you know what rescue workers do when there are people buried under ruble? Well that is right little Johnny, they remove the rubble to dig the people out - put a gold star on that little boy's forehead.

Now when the men need to remove a large mangled section of a building do you think they might use a cutting torch to cut through some steel beams? If you say yes you get another gold star. 

Now you see that melted stuff under the obviously hand cut beam? That is melted steel left by a cutting torch. have you ever used a cutting torch? I have and the cut looks exactly like the one on that beam.

Do you think that just maybe this might explain how and why that beam appears to have been cut? Do you think the presence of a rescue worker in the photo suggests rescue workers may have had something to do with the cut?

Good Lord, if this were ancient Rome your name would be Dipshiticus. I mean really, can you really be that stupid? How is this humanly possible?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

please read, ... http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

caught him, ... 













.......................................................... ^^^^^^ that guy did it.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Why did they wait 5 hours while the fires burned before they set off these alleged charges, and how did these so called explosive charges or thermite withstand the fires for 5 hours without igniting and burning off?


Do you honestly believe you can start a thermite reaction with fire? Unless you have a cutting or plasma torch you can't as it takes temperatures in excess of 2200F to start the reaction, usually the easiest way to get it started is by setting a magnesium strip on fire which burns at about 2500F. Normal fire is far less than 1500F so it can withstand a normal fire indefinitely without reacting. 

c4 high explosive can be burnt just like wood and it will NOT explode, you explosives laymen think that real explosives act like they do in the movies, they don't. The only way your going to get C4 to blow is with a high compression high burn rate device like a blasting cap or det cord, otherwise it just burns to ash.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Do you honestly believe you can start a thermite reaction with fire? Unless you have a cutting or plasma torch you can't as it takes temperatures in excess of 2200F to start the reaction, usually the easiest way to get it started is by setting a magnesium strip on fire which burns at about 2500F. Normal fire is far less than 1500F so it can withstand a normal fire indefinitely without reacting.
> 
> c4 high explosive can be burnt just like wood and it will NOT explode, you explosives laymen think that real explosives act like they do in the movies, they don't. The only way your going to get C4 to blow is with a high compression high burn rate device like a blasting cap or det cord, otherwise it just burns to ash.


do the cords burn if exposed to hours of fire? 

how then do you get temps of 2200F to ignite the thermite?


they use a lighter here, so "yes", i honestly believe they can ignite thermite with fire ...


[youtube]hhPjYpLsI2Y[/youtube]




i really don't know so don't get cocky please.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> do the cords burn if exposed to hours of fire?
> 
> how then do you get temps of 2200F to ignite the thermite?
> 
> ...


They are using the spark of the burning metal when it is struck, not the fire itself FDD. 

Of course cords would burn if exposed to fire. Did I say they used det cord?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Do you honestly believe you can start a thermite reaction with fire? Unless you have a cutting or plasma torch you can't as it takes temperatures in excess of 2200F to start the reaction, usually the easiest way to get it started is by setting a magnesium strip on fire which burns at about 2500F. Normal fire is far less than 1500F so it can withstand a normal fire indefinitely without reacting.
> 
> c4 high explosive can be burnt just like wood and it will NOT explode, you explosives laymen think that real explosives act like they do in the movies, they don't. The only way your going to get C4 to blow is with a high compression high burn rate device like a blasting cap or det cord, otherwise it just burns to ash.



Again, can you not see ur flawed thinking?

How would the conspirators know that wt7 would be hit by the other buildings? So they set thousands of pounds of Thermite and waited 5 hours to blow it?

think it through..... wow.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> They are using the spark of the burning metal when it is struck, not the fire itself FDD.
> 
> Of course cords would burn if exposed to fire. Did I say they used det cord?



now i'm just confused. thanks anyway.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

Oh let's just finish this nonsense and move on to something truly important and halfway logical

All the answers are here in this post.

Remember that almost any one of these makes the rest of the Truthers claims seem ridiculous and unworkable. There are far too many "ifs", and "what if's" in the conspiracy to hold together for anyone with an analytical mind.

Read on.................................. 

==================================================================

*Sunday, March 29, 2009*

* 9/11 "Truthers" Meet their Waterloo - The Ron Craig Talk *

The UW 9/11 Research Group, which previously sponsored two presentations by truthers, has finally gotten around to hearing the other side.

* Ron Craig, a professor at Ryerson University with extensive training and experience in explosives, gave a talk Friday night in the Arts Lecture Hall at the University of Waterloo.* Here's a brief summary:

He started by asking, "How many people here believe the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives?" Sadly, about half the people in the audience of approximately 100 raised their hands.

He then showed clips of the WTC buildings collapsing, some eyewitness testimony, and excerpts of last year's appalling presentations by A. K. Dewdney and Graeme MacQueen. He then asked rhetorically, "After seeing all this, how could you not believe the towers were brought down by explosives?"

Briefly, his answer was "expectation bias": investigators reach a premature conclusion without examining all the relevant data.

9/11 "Truthers" start with a presupposition, then look for data to support it. By contrast, real fire investigators start with documents such as NFPA 921, which outlines a scientific basis for investigating these incidents.

* Craig pointed out that the WTC buildings used an innovative design for lightweight construction. They were the first super-high buildings to use this kind of construction, without heavy girders. The buildings weighed only 1/2 of what a conventional building would have weighed. *

When demolition experts want to bring down a building, he said, they drill into columns and place the explosives. But no cement columns were used in the WTC. Furthermore, maintenance at the buildings reports that core beams above the 84th floor were inaccessible.

He then examined one claimed scenario for controlled demolition: in this scenario, explosives were placed on every floor. He then estimated how much explosive would be needed in this scenario, and came up with 1300 pounds of TNT-equivalent per floor, for a total of *143,000 pounds*. Clearly this would be infeasible to set up without someone noticing.

* Furthermore, such a large amount of explosive would have blown out windows in other buildings for blocks around. But this did not occur.* In an explosive detonation, the typical injury is from flying glass, but there is no evidence that this occurred, nor evidence of other kinds of projectile injuries. 

Explosives create heat of as much as 7000 degrees. Thermal injuries will be accompanied by primary blast injuries caused by pressure when the shockwave progesses through the body (e.g., middle ear injuries). "Blast lung" can occur at 50 to 150 psi. But not a single person in NY exhibited any symptoms of PBI.

* Claims that thermite was used is undermined by the fact that no barium nitrate was found in the debris.* He estimated that *61,000 pounds of Thermite would have been needed*. Again, it would have been impossible to set this up without someone noticing. Claims that sulfur was a signature of thermite/thermate are silly, because both the elevator shafts and stairwells were constructed with drywall, which is gypsum (calcium sulfate with 18% sulfur content).

Claims that molten steel was still flowing 21 days after the attacks are implausible. He showed one slide that supposedly depicted white-hot metal being observed by workers; it was actually just a worklight, as a video showed. 

There is no good evidence that there were pools of molten steel. Many metals were at WTC, and low-temperature alloys could easily have formed. NFPA 921 says "if this occurs it is not an indication that accelerants were used or were present in the fire."

He then addressed the claim that "no other steel frame building has ever collapsed because of fire". He addressed other fires, such as this one at Delft. During the fire there was a partial collapse with "squibs" visible just as in the WTC. 

He compared the WTC fire to other fires, such as the one in Madrid and One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia. Both of these buildings had designs quite different from WTC. 

Overall, I'd rate this part of the presentation as an A-. I think his points were very effective, although he could have also referenced the 1967 McCormick Center fire in Chicago, and he could have pointed to the lack of seismic evidence for explosions. 

After the talk, there were some questions from the audience. One questioner asked him if he considered the "geo-political context" for 9/11. To his credit, Craig said that this was not his area of expertise; he is a fire and explosives expert, and his job is to look at the hard evidence, not speculations about motives.

Another questioner suggested that the Towers were brought down by some high-tech explosive invented by the government but unknown to everyone else. Craig found this suggestion (and a similar suggestion that "lasers" were used) ridiculous, saying that he regularly attends explosives conferences and such a thing could not be kept secret from experts.

Another questioner brought up the collapse of WTC 7. Craig said that he did not know for sure the cause of the collapse of that building, because not enough evidence was gathered yet. He said that he expects we will eventually know, because there is a strong motivation by architects, engineers, and insurance companies to understand the reasons behind the collapse, and many people are working on it.

I'd rate the question-answering portion as B+. Sometimes he simply reiterated previous points, instead of attempting to address the question from another angle, but overall he was generally effective. 

Overall, I thought Ron Craig did a good job of demolishing the bizarre and unsupported claims by truthers that explosives brought down the World Trade Center buildings. Regrettably, it is unlikely to have much impact on truthers, who typically hold their beliefs with a religious fervor. 
Posted by Jeffrey Shallit at 7:03 AM       
Labels: 9/11 



* 13 comments: *






Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said... _Another questioner suggested that the Towers were brought down by some high-tech explosive invented by the government but unknown to everyone else._

This might explain the lack of thermite chemical signature, but the argument already presented about lack of blast injuries would contradict this.
 1:23 PM      
Mark said... There was a show on PBS (probably _Nova_) several years ago that examined why the buildings collapsed. As I recall, they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 737 but may very well have remained standing after being hit by the larger aircraft had not the heat of the burning jet fuel sufficiently softened some horizontal steel members that held it together.
 5:13 PM      
Garkbit said... Maybe they were brought down by some kind of secret telekinesis mind-control program being run by the CIA. That would explain the absence of blast-related injuries.
 2:23 AM      
Arthur Scheuerman said... The Myth of Controlled Demolition in the Collapse of the WTC Buildings

It is amazing to me how many Architects and Engineers cannot understand how the Towers could collapse from fire. WTC 7, a high-rise office building was not hit by any planes and was destroyed by a fire in ordinary combustible furnishings. Y*ou may say it&#8217;s highly unreasonable to believe that 4 steel constructed high-rise buildings collapsed from fire in one day? Well they all had one thing in common; Long Span steel composite floors with connections not designed for thermal effects. They designed these buildings to maximize office space while maintaining exterior views and providing office layout flexibility and the interior columns were interfering and had to be removed. This column removal was attained by using long span steel beams and girders which are used in many existing office high-rise buildings. The use of long floor spans along with the 1968 building code relaxation lowering the fireproofing requirements have apparently created a condition that with large fires in these buildings could lead to a major collapse. Long span steel beams have a magnified response to heat. They expand a longer distance than short span beams and they still have their full strength in the beginning of the expansion. NIST computer studies show that this strength while the beam is elongating can shear off the bolts connecting the beams to the columns or girders if the connections are not designed to counter this effect. This strength as the beam expands can also crack the concrete slab at the shear studs and buckle the beam itself as differential internal compression builds up in the steel during expansion. A buckled or bowing long span (over 40 feet) beam can impart large tension forces on the connections especially when a sagging beam begins to shrink as it cools. Bowing occurs when the bottom flange of a steel beam expands faster than the top flange. Bar joist floor bowing places immediate pull-in tension on the connections.*

The performance of the floor/beam systems in such buildings has been attributed to a complex interrelated sequence of events, described rather simply as follows (Buchanan 2001):
1. The fire causes heating of the beams and the underside of the slab.
2. The slab and beam deform downwards as a result of thermal bowing.
3. Thermal expansion causes compressive axial restraint forces to develop in the beams.
4. The reaction from the stiff surrounding structure causes the axial restraint
forces to become large.
5. The yield strength and modulus of elasticity of the steel reduce steadily.
6. The downward deflections increase rapidly due to the combined effects of the
applied loads, thermal bowing, and the high axial compressive forces.
7. The axial restraint forces reduce due to the increased deflections and the
reduced modulus of elasticity, limiting the horizontal forces on the
surrounding structure.
8. Higher temperatures lead to a further reduction of flexural and axial strength
and stiffness. (NISTIR 7563)
9. The slab&#8211;beam system deforms into a catenary, resisting the applied loads
with tensile membrane forces.
10. As the fire decays, the structural members cool down and attempt to shorten in length.
11. High tensile axial forces [pull-in] are induced in the slab, the beam, and the beam connections.
These actions can take place in two or three dimensions


Photo of Steel structure after Cardington tests in the UK

Use of Steel in Construction

Steel has always had a stability problem under fire conditions. Steel members begin to expand immediately when heated and internal thermal stress in the beams, girders, or joists bends, buckles, twists, and warps the steel, eroding structural integrity. Thermal expansion in a long span beam can shear off the bolts connecting the beam. Thermal contraction in a sagging, long span steel beam can tear out the connections as the beam cools. From a collapse potential the long span, bar joist trusses used in the Tower construction was a most vulnerable design. It was evident from the bowing inward of the exterior columns that the sagging trusses pulled-in these columns on the long span side of each building beginning the progressive collapses. There is also evidence that the collapse timing corresponded with the time to heat these steel trusses,- depending on the insulation thickness used in each tower,- to a temperature which expanded the steel enough to collapse the trusses or cause thermal bowing where the lower truss chord expands allowing the top chord to go into suspension, or upon cooling of the sagging contracting trusses pulled in the exterior column walls . 

* UK engineer Dr. A.S. Usmani, et al., related the following relative to his preliminary findings about the collapse of the WTC Towers: 5

Due to their length and slenderness, the thermal expansion effects in long-span, steel bar joists produce compression buckling in floors at lower temperatures than are presently compensated for in the fireproofing codes. This sort of thing has not been considered in the design of high-rise structures, with the possibility of multiple-floor fires. * 

Longer-span steel structural members expand a greater distance than short-span elements, and, as they are heated, slender elements can fail from buckling under compression at temperatures that are still low enough (400° to 500°C) that the steel retains most of its strength. 

According to S. Lamont et al &#8220;The furnace test does not consider vial structural phenomena found in the 3D behavior of real buildings including large deflections, restrained thermal expansion and thermal bowing, membrane and catenary load carrying mechanisms in slabs and beams respectively, and compatibility of deflections in two or more directions in an integrated structural frame,&#8221;41

Expansion Effects

* The wider floor sections of the Towers had longer 60 foot joists, which, because of increased loads, would be inherently weaker and would expand and lengthen a greater distance if exposed to heat. Note: &#8220;Steel will expand .06 percent to .07 percent in length for each 100°F rise in temperature. Heated to 1,000°F, a steel member will expand 9½ inches in 100 feet of length.&#8221; 21 According to the FEMA, ASCE- Building Performance Study, &#8220;an unrestrained, 20-meter-long [about 60-foot] steel member that experiences a temperature increase of 500°C [1,022°F] will expand approximately 110 mm [4.0 inches].&#8221;18 Note: Steel expansion begins immediately as the steel is heated and can be destructive to the long span trusses even though the steel temperature is low enough (300 to 500 C) that the steel retains most of its strength.*

&#8220;Differential expansion of steel is probably the main cause of failure of the floor system used in the towers. Since the top chord of the long-span truss is steel, it will elongate more than the top concrete slab at the same temperature. Steel, if not adequately insulated, will also absorb heat faster than concrete. Steel differential expansion has been shown to be a cause of bowing, shear-induced buckling of the struts and the loss of composite action in the floor system [as a result of] the shear &#8216;knuckles&#8217; detaching from the concrete. The knuckle bonds sequentially break, starting at the ends, eliminating the composite action under load. &#8220;(NIST, 2, Appendix K):

Current practice is to protect the steel by requiring enough insulation to prevent loss of strength by preventing columns from reaching 1000 deg. F (538o C) and beams from reaching 1100 deg. F (593o C) in the standard furnace test. This criterion has proven effective in short span designs. As the steel is heated further and temperatures rise to higher than 600°F, steel loses strength. At 1,200°F (about 650°C), steel loses about 50 percent of its strength. At 1,300°F (about 700°C), the yield point is drastically reduced and steel members fail. The collapse of Building 7 and the Twin Towers has been proven that this protection requirement (i.e. 10000 F. for columns and 11000 F for beams) inadequate when protecting long span steel floors since the expansion effects in steel beams can buckle the beams or fail the connections at lower temperatures (400 to 5000 C). Long span steel must now be protected from heat by adequate fireproofing insulation and integrated properly to compensate for the lower temperature effects of thermal expansion and contraction during fires. To maintain building stability, lateral bracing becomes even more important in construction that features lightweight, long-span floors. All three buildings relied on floor membrane stability to laterally support the columns.

The fireproofing insulation thickness schedules in the Building Code were developed for the short span floors which were used in the older high-rise buildings and this insulation defended against thermal weakness in the steel beams rather than expansion which apparently was not a problem in the shorter spans. Steel weakening occurs later at higher temperatures 1100deg. F (about 600 deg. C). Low temperature expansion effects occur earlier as the steel is first heated to temperatures below 400 deg. C and long span, expansion effects have yet to be compensated for in the fireproofing insulation codes. This deficiency in high-rise office buildings using large open areas, and long span composite flooring systems is a new finding uncovered by the study of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Buildings 5 and 7 and was first illuminated in the engineering computer studies. Further scientific research is critically needed to determine what changes are needed in fireproofing insulation types and schedules for the longer spans and the possibly of requiring span limitations, redundancies in column strength, connections designed to compensate for the expansion and separate lateral column support. 

A key characteristic of large open office areas not compartmented by firewalls is that a fire can release a large quantity of heat as the fire spreads over the floor if not extinguished immediately as by a working, water spray system (sprinkler) or by the Fire Department. The water spray systems in both towers and Building 7 were damaged by the forces of plane impacts and in Building 7 by the tower&#8217;s collapse impacts damaging the water mains in the streets which also deprived the Fire Department of water. Fire size is another major factor affecting steel failure. FDNY Chief Vincent Dunn explains: 

&#8220;A large-area fire in which flames involve much of the steel beam in a short period of time will heat a beam to its critical temperature more quickly. A so-called &#8216;flash fire&#8217;&#8212;which suddenly involves a large area with flame, can heat [inadequately fireproofed] steel to its failure temperature rapidly.&#8221;4

Because long span, lightweight steel, bar-joist floor construction was used to provide wide-open spaces free of columns within the WTC towers, vulnerabilities were introduced. Since lightweight steel trusses are affected by a large fire faster than heavy members, and since they span such larger areas, their failure would be much more serious than would the failure of a short-span element. 

The other thing about long span floors is that when an interior column or columns fail under such large area circumstances the building may not be able to redistribute the floor loads to other columns and the collapse is likely to progress upwards putting all the floors above into suspension. If the building is not protected against progressive collapse, global (total) collapse can ensue. Building 7 collapsed because one key interior column failed after the long span floors failed around it. Because of the long spans the key column was supporting a large area of flooring on every floor. It was discovered by the NIST computer studies that failure of this one column would have brought the entire building down without any fire. Such a lack of column redundancy should be corrected by deigning the building to withstand the removal any single column.

Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc.

* Scientists rarely speak of the &#8216;truth&#8217; until they have spent enough time examining the evidence. Its amazing to me how the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who apparently have little or no knowledge or expertise in fire protection or building collapse, just dismiss the reports of the top Fire Protection engineering experts in their fields and take some theological professor&#8217;s absurd babble as gospel. I suppose if their car&#8217;s engine broke down they would call the local preacher. The vaguest possibility is immediately touted as the truth and repeatedly echoed on the internet without any research or fact checking. Four years after the 9/11 attack and without inspecting any of the steel the Architect Richard Gage was listening to some equally uninformed Philosophy Professor, David Ray Griffin and had an epiphany and from then on he &#8216;knew&#8217; that the buildings &#8220;had to be brought down by explosives&#8221;. &#8220;That&#8217;s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second.&#8221; How does he know all the columns failed at the same moment? These lower columns were out of sight of the cameras. The first thing to fail was the floors on the east side then the east interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse on the roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in indicating widespread core column failure and than the exterior frame started to descend, but the outside frame was strong and there were large belt trusses around the entire building between the 22nd to 24th floors. These belt trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower exterior columns had failed. With the failure of most of the interior floors and columns there apparently was an 8 floor section of exterior columns without lateral support. When this 8 story section of columns buckled the building began a 2 second period of free fall acceleration. Building 7 took over 13 seconds to collapse not 6. 

NIST computer models show that the building was deconstructed by the heat of the uncontrolled fires expanding the long span steel floors, buckling the beams, disconnecting structural steel, and eventually buckling one key column which started the progressive collapse. The design was so flawed that that because that one column buckled the collapse progressed up to the roof and than across the core to take down the entire interior of the building. I want to hear what the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth think about a building within which the failure of one column will start a progressive collapse that brings down the whole building. Now that&#8217;s an architectural and engineering problem that needs their attention which will not be forthcoming if they continue to believe the buildings were taken down by supposed explosives. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth&#8217;s Richard Gage is going all around the country spreading his pseudoscientific misinformation that explosives were used to bring down these buildings. 
* 
The top experts in the field, Shyam Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years of engineering experience believe the buildings were brought down by the fires. Gene Corley who was also the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, - which was destroyed by explosives, - said there was &#8220;no evidence of explosives&#8221; at the WTC site. He and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene immediately and examining the steel. Dr. Barnett described the devastation caused by the interior collapse of several floors in Building 5 (Yes. Building 5.) from fire when the steel beams pulled out from their connections. These are all recognized experts in their fields and have to get things right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt a person inexperienced in the fire protection field could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study, but they keep trying. The BBC put on the top building demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who explains how the towers collapse could not have been a controlled demolition and all he gets is blasted by the 9/11 &#8216;truthers&#8217; for being &#8216;in-on&#8217; the conspiracy. 

Their spokesperson Kevin Ryan knew very little about how floor assemblies are tested by his own company Underwriters Laboratory. He worked in the water testing section of the UL. Mr. Ryan reported that they tested the steel and it withstood 2000 deg for 3 and 4 hours. The UL tests 17 foot floor and wall assemblies not the steel per se. The problem is that the long span composite floors used in the towers were never tested by anyone in their long span configuration of 60 feet. Building 7 also used long span steel &#8220;I&#8221; beams. What most architects apparently don&#8217;t yet know is that lightweight, long span steel trusses and &#8220;I&#8221; beams can fail at fire temperatures not yet compensated for in the codes. The standard furnace test can only handle 17 foot lengths of flooring and doesn&#8217;t test the connections for fire exposure. The furnace standards were set in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s when about 15 to 20 feet was the standard span used in high rises built for the more conservative codes at that time. These older buildings used shorter spans, more robust columns and beams, stronger connections and better fireproofing then now and stood up to fires quite well. If a floor failed the push-out forces of expansion and the pull-in (catenary) forces created by the short spans were easily handled by the strength of the rest of the structure. For this reason the codes allowed floors to have a shorter (3 hour) rating than the columns and girders (4 hours). The 17 foot furnace test, currently still used, is meaningless for the longer spans and connections. The main problem in the Tower flooring was due to the differential elongation (expansion) of the steel parts of the trusses.

NIST&#8217;s studies found that the different expansion rates immediately deformed the steel parts, buckled the top chords and struts in the bar joist floors and disconnected the composite bond between the concrete slab and the steel joists. Greater thermal expansion of the bottom chords releases the tension and allows the cool top chord to sag and bow downwards until it acts as a cable in suspension creating pull-in forces on the columns. Buckling of the top chord allows the bottom chord to act as a catenary. The contraction of sagging, long span steel flooring during the cool down faze after the fire dies down puts heavy pull-in loads on the connections. It is now known that Building 7 collapsed from expansion and/or contraction in the floor beams disconnecting enough of the beams and girders to affect column stability. There was a second or two when the perimeter wall came down at free fall acceleration but this in no way indicates demolition was involved. There was so much destruction of the interior structure over many floors that long sections of exterior columns failed at essentially the same time.

Many people interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used. Most of these loud sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. In order for an explosion to cause a collapse it would have to occur before the collapse. Some &#8216;thunder&#8217; sounds were heard in Building 7 before the exterior columns buckled and these were probably from floors collapsing and impacting the floors below. Explosive forces great enough to destroy the columns would be as loud as ten times the decibel level (140 db) of standing next to the speakers at a rock concert. NIST reports such loud sounds were not heard nor recorded in the video tapes.

The undamaged exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both WTC Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane's impact. That's 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2's collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time.

Sequence of buckling of Tower 2&#8217;s East wall columns.


The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have had to have happened with controlled demolition. 

When the undamaged south exterior wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. This bowing and buckling was witnessed and video taped by the Police Aviation Unit. 






In the North Tower "thunder" sounds were heard when some floors apparently collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would take these 'supposed explosive' sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south column wall failure. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive sounds reported by firefighters as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors after the top of the building began falling. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward from the building at great velocity by the bellows effect of the floors coming together so quickly. 

Initial Collapse Cause

Much consternation has been expressed because of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because once the collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. As it was, it was a severe strain on computer capabilities to analyze the mechanism of collapse up to the point of runaway disintegration. By dint of computers running for extended periods of time NIST did analyze almost the complete collapse sequence of building 7.

Bar joist Floors

It is clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses in the towers with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor at the weak, single bolt connections which would have impacted the floor below destroying its composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses buckled the diagonal compression struts collapsing the trusses themselves which went into suspension (catenary action) and this also assisted pull-in and eventually buckled in the exterior column walls. Differential thermal expansion of the concrete slab and the steel has also been shown by NIST to disconnect the knuckles (knuckles are the steel tops of the bent over bars in the trusses which are imbedded in the concrete) from the concrete slab causing loss of composite behavior in the floors. 

All these adverse floor effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling can happen at low temperatures (300 C to 500 C) even before the steel beams would have been weakened excessively from higher temperatures. The longer the beam the further it can expand and since the steel still has its full strength the expansion can break the bolts holding the beam and bow or buckle the beam itself. Thermal contraction caused by cooling of sagging trusses or &#8216;I&#8217; beams after the fire &#8216;burns out&#8217; or dies down can cause strong pull-in forces on the exterior columns and core columns due to the contraction of the sagging steel trusses or &#8216;I&#8217; beams.

Columns

In order for a column to support the loads it has to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. The fact is, columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. If they get out of alignment by 10 to 20 degrees they buckle and can no longer support the weight. The Tower buildings collapsed because the floors first caved in from restrained thermal expansion and from thermal bowing or delamination of the slab and bar joists composite action affecting floor truss stability. The sagging, 60 foot long, floor trusses gradually pulled-in the 59 columns in one exterior wall in each tower and these column walls eventually buckled removing practically all support on one entire long span side. In Building 7 floor failures from steel expansion and/or contraction disconnecting the floor beams exposed a critical column to loss of lateral restraint over many floors and lateral forces causing the column to buckle and remove support for all the floors above and starting the complete progressive collapse of the building.

In the WTC Towers once the exterior columns buckling spread, along an entire wall removing support on one face, the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and the towers began to tilt. With the entire top of the building tilting all the columns were out of alignment and buckling and the leaning top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some northern angles to have began falling straight down it actually first tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the cantilevered top building section pulled the core along with the entire top over to the south. This is especially telling as evidence of fire induced collapse since all the damage from the plane impact was on the north side which side should have collapsed first,- if the plane damage was contributory,- and the tower should have leaned over to the north. The South Towers&#8217; top tilted to the east because its east exterior wall buckled first from the pull-in forces of the failing long span flooring trusses on that side. Once the tower&#8217;s tops began tilting all the columns across the buildings would be out of alignment and easily buckled. 

There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been much longer than 'free fall' times of an object dropped from the towers tops. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side, the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. Once the tilted tower&#8217;s tops began descending the columns hit the floors or the lower columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top, the columns would have had to hit each other exactly in line and plumb and this was impossible with the top of the building leaning causing eccentric angles of impact. 


Once the Towers top building sections began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the east wall buckled in Tower 2, the adjacent perimeter wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite, west side of the building acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have also eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. Because of the weight of the accumulating collapsing floors, there was a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated into the cellars. 
The heavy core columns depended on the floors for lateral support once they lost lateral support and experienced &#8216;pull in&#8217; forces and got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. After the upper part of the buildings began descending, with the incredible weight of the top of the buildings&#8217; gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns. 

This is coupled with the fact that the falling top section&#8217;s momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top section's increasing mass of impacted floors acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts were increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs; increasing in amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulating impacted floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar. 


Since the Tower's outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana after the building top began to impact and disconnect the floors, these wall columns may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting smoke and debris outwards onto these columns, these columns, while leaning out, might have been able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors or with the excess strain the connections could have failed sooner. If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could have traveled down the sides of the buildings and accelerated faster than free fall. This might explain the rapidity of the collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above. Anyway this mechanism would have surly reduced the failure times of the floor connections. 

But these buildings did not collapse faster than free fall times and this is proved by the photos themselves. It can be seen that the detached exterior walls which were falling at free fall acceleration after they detached, were falling faster than the remaining center portions of the buildings. This fact proves the Towers fell slower than free fall acceleration. 

The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high buildings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance (300 to 400 feet) was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree. If a wall is strong enough and doesn&#8217;t break up as it falls outward it can fall out flat to a distance equal to its height. The Tower walls, however, did break at the weak column splices as they fell. 

The compression of the 12 foot chunk of air on each floor down to a fraction of an inch in a fraction of a second as the floors came together would propel the air smoke and dust outward from the building at great velocity. The lightweight aluminum cladding as it broke free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air, smoke and dust. This gas compression would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. 

The light reflected off the aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 were interpreted as flashes from explosive 'squibs'. These pieces of aluminum broke off from buckling columns. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial compressive weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel and especially in aluminum, and such indications were not found anywhere in the debris pile.

The compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out any path of least resistance on any floor or any of the HVAC air intake or discharge openings on the lower mechanical equipment floors in the exterior walls. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards sideways from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) shafts built into the building. These vertical shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts open to the exterior on the mechanical floors.

Deep Seated Pockets of Fire

After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile. These &#8216;deep seated pockets of fire&#8217; sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air because these natural convection currents. Heated air rises because of its expansion and resultant buoyancy and is replaced by cool air drawn in from the bottom and sides of the fire. This air flow can become rapid because of the high temperatures developed. The more air drawn in the hotter the fire becomes and the increased temperature increases the convection currents which draw in more air. After a collapse there is more combustible material available to feed the fire. Like in a furnace the containment of heat by insulation provided by the compacted combustible material surrounding the fire allows the gradual increase of temperature. I am convinced that temperatures of over 2000 deg F. can easily be developed in these deep seated pockets of fire in the rubble of a collapsed building. This temperature is still incapable of melting steel unless there is excess oxygen available. 

These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity to the fire until the steel is glowing red, orange or yellow hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These underground fires are similar to blacksmith forge fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel or iron is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer.

I talked to a blacksmith at Old Bethpage Restoration on Long Island and he told me that he can create enough heat to burn and melt the steel and it sometimes happens when he is talking to people and absent mindedly keeps pulling the bellows chord and feeding air into the coals. Burning the iron melts the steel and ruins the work. 

"With bellows blowing additional air through the fire, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000° Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°, however, so the smith has to be careful to not ruin his work! &#8230; The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead."
http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y

Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation and the angle of these cuts were erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter (demolition) charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut. These steel microspheres,- said to be evidence of thermite,- would also have been produced during the buildings&#8217; construction by welders and retained in the concrete or else where only to be released during the collapse. 

The deep seated pockets of fire often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be quickly extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as &#8216;molten&#8217; steel. 

About the &#8220;meteorite&#8221; recovered from ground zero. Everyone uses the word &#8216;molten&#8217; in describing the steel in the meteorite when it actually is deformed pieces of the bar joist flooring compacted with concrete and pieces of furnishings. This is careless language. Apparently people seeing steel deformed by heat immediately call it molten or melted steel. Melted or molten steel indicates a liquid state which only occurs at higher temperatures than an ordinary fire can produce. The meteorite is a piece of pancaked concrete and steel floors fused together by high impacts. It contains charred pieces of books and paper which would not be present if heat high enough to melt steel existed at anytime in the &#8220;meteorite&#8221;.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead and the aluminum from the plane and aluminum from the tower&#8217;s own cladding which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. There were also quantities of lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards. In the some people&#8217;s imagination the reported &#8216;flowing molten metal&#8217; became &#8216;rivers of molten steel&#8217;. 

Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid they are over in a matter of seconds and wouldn't last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed. As far as I know thermite has never been used to demolish buildings and the expertise probably doesn&#8217;t exist. Thermite is hard to control and can&#8217;t be held against the columns because it would burn, spall or melt down through any material used to support it against the columns long enough to do enough damage to cause the column to buckle. 

About the concrete pulverization into dust reported to be only possible by explosive charges; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says "the energy required to crush concrete to 100 &#956;m particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range." http://nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf. I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par to begin with due too much air or water having been added during the pouring and finishing operation to speed working and leveling the cement or to freezing during curing in the course of construction. 

Do you think the architect or engineers who built the Towers would want to admit the deficiencies in design, fireproofing and other construction weaknesses after their buildings collapsed? Do you think they will get any other jobs after 4 of their buildings collapsed from fire? How come the 9/11, Architects & Engineers for truth never mention Building 5. Building 5 had a serious fire on many floors and had several floors collapse from the steel beams being disconnected from the columns due to thermal expansion, sagging and catinary action tearing out the bolted beam connections? (ASCE, Building Performance Study) I suppose that some of the &#8216;truthers&#8217; never even read the American Society of Civil Engineer&#8217;s or the NIST&#8217;s report. Did building 5 also have charges set beforehand? How many other buildings had hypothetical charges set beforehand and were never set off? If they went to all the trouble to rig all these buildings with alleged explosives, why didn&#8217;t they just set them off and forget the planes and the fires. Waiting for the planes and fires would surely increase their chances of being detected.

There are so many questions answered by the fire theories and so many unanswerable questions posed by the demolition theories that it is ludicrous to continue the proposition that explosives had to be employed to collapse these buildings.

Do you know that the Port Authority of NY, NJ didn't legally have to follow any building codes? The reason the columns broke at the splices was that they had serious weaknesses due to lack of reinforcing plates or even welds on most of the exterior column, bolted splices and not because of the ridiculous idea repeated incessantly by Richard Gauge that they were broken up into short pieces, presumably by explosives, &#8216;so they would fit onto the trucks to be carried away&#8217;. The long span truss floors were never tested for fire resistance at their design length. Why do you think it took so long to get the plans for the buildings after they collapsed while the building engineers had them all along? I am sad to think the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth would be accepting of such a convenient excuse,- that explosives or thermite was involved,- but that idea would allow them to avoid the introspection necessary to fully realize their own ignorance of what fire can do to steel beams and columns,- a necessary realization before meaningful knowledge can be developed to make their buildings safe.

About the eye witnesses hearing supposed explosions; there are many reasons that loud sounds can be produced at a fire. Most of the people in Tower 2 did not know Tower 1 had been struck by a plane but they heard the explosion and even felt the radiant heat produced by the fireball. Often at fires the ones closest to the fires and engaged in heavy work have a very limited overall conception of what is actually happening. When you don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s happening especially in the dark smoky conditions your imagination starts to work. Barry Jennings said he was stepping over dead bodies when being led out of building 7 after it was hit by pieces of Tower 1. He later admitted that he never actually saw these bodies. He must have imagined it. I suppose he also imagined seeing the two Towers still standing amid the smoke after he experienced a supposed explosion while descending the stairway. The &#8220;explosion&#8221; that Barry Jenning&#8217;s heard was probably the pieces of Tower 1 hitting Building 7. Even experienced reporters couldn&#8217;t believe the towers were gone from the skyline after they collapsed.

When Tower 2 collapsed most of the people in Tower 1 thought the sounds and vibrations came from the building they were in and they even felt a rush of air up the stairs as the air was compressed in the cellars. The fact that they are in strange circumstances with lack of information, smoke and possibly darkness, and the presence of strange sounds creates a fertile field for the imagination. There can also be real smoke explosions (backdrafts) particularly in fires that have a flammable liquid involved. One elevator shaft that extended into the cellars experienced a fuel-air explosion from the jet fuel spilling down and evaporating in the shaft. There were other fuel-air explosions in the elevator shafts. There could have been floor detachments impacting the floors below and producing loud sounds before any general collapse began. Explosives produce loud distinctive pressure waves that can leave people deaf or blow out eardrums and usually blow out all the windows on the particular floor and in any buildings nearby. This kind of sharp piercing crack was not heard. The windows broken out and marble wall panels detached on the interior of the first floor lobby were probably because of torque or bending forces experienced on the lower floor columns from the plane impacts many floors above. The buildings were reported to sway several feet when the planes hit the towers. In order to let additional light into the lobby these lower exterior columns were fewer and further apart than the columns above. The lower &#8216;core&#8217; columns in this area were stronger and securely cross braced to compensate for this weakness of the exterior columns in the lobby. This fact was probably responsible for saving the lives of the members of a Ladder Company who were trapped in the stairwell on these lower floors during the collapse. It&#8217;s too bad this strength wasn&#8217;t continued up the core to the building top. It may have saved many more lives by protecting the stairways. The reports of "explosions" in the cellars were also probably from such column or floor displacements or from jet fuel ignitions in the elevator shafts. If you imbed a stick into the ground and hit it with another stick most of the deformation will be in the ground around the bottom of the stick. There were reports of split walls and ceiling collapses on many floors after the planes hit. 

The &#8220;mysterious&#8221; collapse of Building 7. 

How do you think that the alleged conspirators knew that Building 7 would be hit by pieces of Tower 1 which would set it on fire? They would have to know this beforehand in order to set the mysterious explosive charges that allegedly demolished the building. Why did they wait 5 hours while the fires burned before they set off these alleged charges, and how did these so called explosive charges or thermite withstand the fires for 5 hours without igniting and burning off? The NIST computer models show steel beams buckling, sagging floors and disconnection of the beams from the columns and finally failure of one key column which started the global collapse, all from the heat of the fires expanding the long span steel and breaking the bolted shear connections in Building 7. 

BBC reporting error on Building 7 collapse.

You may ask &#8220;How did the BBC know that the Towers were going to collapse?&#8221; The BBC didn't know. Did you ever hear a mistake made by a reporter? Or do you believe everything you are told by a TV reporter in the heat of an emergency? The BBC reporter on the air received an erroneous report that the Building 7 had collapsed before it actually did and reported it well before the actual occurrence. It was a simple mistake. 

I can imagine how it happened. In addition to the damage done to Building 7 by the heavy steel column trees that pealed off of the collapsing towers some of these steel columns penetrated the roads and broke the nearby water mains. There was fire on many floors in Building 7 and without water these fires could not be controlled. The collapse possibility was anticipated by the Fire Dept. who ordered the evacuation out of the building and out of a &#8220;collapse zone&#8221; about 600 feet around the building. Apparently they were the only people who realized the possibility that an out of control fire on multiple floors in a steel framed, long span, open area, office building could cause a collapse. They had just experienced the collapse of two similar buildings trapping and killing many of their brothers. The &#8216;collapse zone&#8217; was a large area including buildings and streets around Building 7 and clearing this large area of people was a big problem. To get some people reluctant to move swiftly out of the area I can imagine someone saying &#8220;the building&#8217;s coming down&#8221;. A reporter may have heard this and called his boss and told him the building 7 is coming down. The person receiving the call believed the building was already collapsing. It went out over the air as the building had already collapsed before the actual occurrence. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant call by the Fire Dept. and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed a few hours after the evacuation order was given.

This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro the chief in charge of the fire, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC 7. 

Release date: September 23, 2007 

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). 

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse. 
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 
4. Numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner [Larry Silverstein], the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. 

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

On October 4 2001 Chief Nigro said; &#8220;The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse [of Tower 1] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had a very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around [building 7] to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations which were going on at the time [under the ruble of Tower 1] and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade Center did collapse, we wouldn&#8217;t lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order [to evacuate the building and collapse zone] was given, at 5;30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. I continued to operate at the scene until probably somewhere around 8 o&#8217;clock, at which time I borrowed Chief Meyer&#8217;s car, because mine was destroyed and went home to [take a], shower, change my clothes and I came back to work at approximately between 11 and midnight with Chief Turi.&#8221;
(New York Times interview Date; October 24, 2001 , transcribed by Elizabeth F. Nason)

If you really believe that all the top fire protection engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and government scientists from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigating the collapse are in on a conspiracy and also want to accuse the BBC, the NYC Fire Department, the NYC Police Department, the Red Cross and all the Government agencies controlling access Building 7 of being &#8216;in on&#8217; a secret controlled demolition even though there was no hard evidence than I would say you may be suffering from a case of paranoia. Paranoia can easily become contagious when people panic and no longer trust their government. We certainly had reason not to trust our previous government. I would say that if you really believe these preposterous demolition theories you should do some soul searching and possibly seek some therapeutic help. 

In conclusion I think all the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions; the sounds of the Towers collapse. When the interior of building 7 collapsed it would have produced loud sounds well before the exterior walls began collapsing. 

It&#8217;s an ill wind that blows no good and the good thing is that NIST now has an effective computer model to test whether a new or existing building is safe from collapse from fire. The architects and engineers should use this capability to assure any proposed or existing designs are safe. Another good thing is that any corrections proposed can be run through the computer and any tested for effectiveness. This NIST computer work,- which modeled the fires and every steel column and beam with their connections,- shows that Building 7 was deconstructed by the heat of the uncontrolled fires expanding the long span steel floors, buckling beams, disconnecting structural steel connections, collapsing the floors and eventually buckling one key column which started the progressive collapse. The connections and lateral support were so week that that the collapse of one key column progressed across the core to take down the entire interior of the building. Now that&#8217;s an architectural and engineering problem. I want to hear what the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth think about a building that can loose one column which starts a progressive collapse that brings down the whole building. Design problem? They should be eager to get those computer models working instead of raving about some imaginary explosives having brought down these buildings.

Arthur Scheuerman
Retired Battalion Chief, FDNY
 10:01 AM      
Eamon Knight said... _Another questioner suggested that the Towers were brought down by some high-tech explosive invented by the government but unknown to everyone else._

Sure: when stumped, invoke mysterious causes for which you have no independent evidence. Much like Creationists claiming goddidit.
 3:20 PM      
Jeffrey Shallit said... Eamon:

Exactly - "truthers" reason just like creationists or Holocaust deniers. It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, or how much bogus evidence is discredited - they are still sure there was a conspiracy. The thing that amazes me is that so many smart people have bought into the 9-11 "truth" movement.
 4:29 PM    





Ron Craig said... A critical evaluation of the evidence used to prove explosive demolition consists of the following: 90% eye witness accounts/photographic evidence and 10% published articles in The Journal of 9/11Studies and other open source journals including &#8220;The Open Civil Engineering Journal&#8221;. So, what do we find in these journals? Let&#8217;s look at one example.

In an article published in the &#8220;The Open Civil Engineering Journal&#8221; (Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction &#8211; 2008, Volume 2) Mr. Steven Jones writes, &#8220;Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials, including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosions investigations by the NFPA 921 Code&#8221; [page 39].

There is only one problem here: this statement does not exist in NFPA 921. 

The exact quote, on page 85, NFPA 921 states: &#8220;Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants usually leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable. Presence of remains from oxidizers does not, in itself, constitute an intentionally set fire&#8221;.

Mr. Jones goes on to state in his article, &#8220;The code specifies that fire scene investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion&#8221;. The implication is an investigator should look for these residues, and if the investigator does not, he/she has to justify the reasons for this action.

Again, no where in NFPA can you find this statement.

NFPA does state, &#8220;The scientific method, however, should be applied in every instance&#8221; (page 7).

I submit that if the quotes used to support a point of view do not exist in the document being quoted, and statements are used which do not exist in the source material, the quality of the research is at best, suspect.

There is one thing for certain: the scientific method is not used in any of the 911 research I have reviewed.
 9:29 PM      
RBH said... First, I thank Chief Scheuerman for his detailed comment. As a former firefighter and chief officer myself (on a volunteer department which sent rescuers to the WTC site a few days after the collapse) I appreciate his thoughts.

I have myself fought structure fires in which metal components flat out melted. For example, some decades ago we fought a fire in an experimental house built by Alcoa identical to  this one. Melted aluminum dripped down into the basement and hit the pooled water from firefighting there and solidified into what look like Hershey's kisses.

The house was insulated with a plastic foam and the fire was fed by ruptured natural gas lines until we could get them shut off, and it defied water streams -- we put 60,000 gallons of water on the fire and didn't put it out. Our interior attack (I was the company officer on the first engine in) on what initially appeared to be a room-and-contents fire was quickly pushed back out and we were reduced to surround and drown with master stream devices and hand lines, except that we couldn't even drown the damned thing. It was the most frustrating fire I ever fought.

On another occasion we had a grain elevator fire in which the flames were every color of the rainbow from the materials involved, including metals like copper, aluminum, and magnesium, and we found pools of once-molten metal in the residue of that fire, too.

So just seeing unidentified molten metal would not indicate a thermite or explosives initiated collapse. The examples I sketched are not at all comparable to the scale of the WTC event, but they illustrate that even 'small' fires produce more than enough heat to melt many metals. All the metal used in construction is not steel.

Amateur conspiracy theorists rarely have direct experience or knowledge of the matters they blather on about.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Oh let's just finish this nonsense and move on to something truly important and halfway logical
> 
> All the answers are here in this post.
> 
> ...



For brevity's sake I shortened up your "Evidence".

Explaining the twin towers and WTC7 with imagination does not prove anything. You can make the argument fit to your own criteria, just as we can. It does nothign to explain EVERYTHING that day, MASSIVE government/military/civilian failure at every single point along the way. Positively atrocious handling of the evidence and how it was all so conveniently recycled the minute it was taken from the site. The pentagon with no holes for the wings and most of the aircraft magically " Disintegrated" even the titanium engines , YET they still found DNA evidence of every person on board. The field where a plane supposedly crashed, no bodies, no real wreckage, nothing...just Disintegrated? Molten steel at the bottom of the tower wreckage. Top government officials and powerful corporate officers were told to not fly that day. Fires that supposedly were so hot that giant steel beams softened and crashed, then defied all laws of physics and the second law of thermodynamics when it fell. Evidence of "Nano Thermite", thousands of engineers, demo experts, architects, fire fighters etc etc who have stood against ridicule to tell the truth.


It all doesn't add up, there are soooo many inconsistencies/motivations for the evidence that is shown for me to believe that 4 planes brought the entire USA, Military, government and civilian sectors to its knees. All planned by people thousands of miles away living in a cave and perpetrated by inept student pilots who magically knew everything about how to navigate around all of the US defenses and could fly large commercial jetliners 5 feet off the ground to take out a mysteriously vacant portion of the largest busiest building in the world ( Pentagon). Like I said it doesn't add up.


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 3, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> now i'm just confused. thanks anyway.


I'm no expert on it either but it looks like the lighter lights a fuse. My bro and I made some kno3 smoke bomb this summer and that led to making our own fuses. Because you need more heat than a flame to start it. Last week we used all our old stock and made charcoal that went into our own black powder. Fun stuff.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> now i'm just confused. thanks anyway.



Flint has another unique property which many people are aware of. When struck against steel, flint will generate a spark by breaking off a small piece of the steel and heating it, causing the steel to ignite, feeding on the oxygen in the air. The burning steel starts the reaction.

Still confused?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> I'm no expert on it either but it looks like the lighter lights a fuse. My bro and I made some kno3 smoke bomb this summer and that led to making our own fuses. Because you need more heat than a flame to start it. Last week we used all our old stock and made charcoal that went into our own black powder. Fun stuff.


that's what i thought. but then wouldn't the fires ignite the thermite "fuses". but they didn't use fuses or chords. hence the confusion. 

wireless charges?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

The simple computation of 63000 pounds ( 30 tons!!) of thermite that would be needed to bring down the towers is proof enough that it never happened.

Like I said, any one of these points unravels the entire 9/11 thruther mumbo jumbo.

In the end we have a very small group of ppl who don't understand how fire works. Most any qualified Engineer thinks the Truthers are misinformed and gullible. I agree.


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 3, 2009)

I hear ya. And I have no idea and I'm willing to admit it. My mind is in a constant wash with 9/11. I'm slowly settling into the idea that maybe it was just allowed to happen? Since most of the cloudiness is about the report and all the other failures that day aside from the physical damage?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The simple computation of 63000 pounds ( 30 tons!!) of thermite that would be needed to bring down the towers is proof enough that it never happened.
> 
> Like I said, any one of these points unravels the entire 9/11 thruther mumbo jumbo.
> 
> In the end we have a very small group of ppl who don't understand how fire works. Most any qualified Engineer thinks the Truthers are misinformed and gullible. I agree.



Ummm if I only need fires on 10 floors to bring those buildings down, who says I need 30 tons of thermite? Maybe I only need 5000 pounds of it to take out key points every 20 floors or so? You can't say that it would take a huge amount of well placed charges to take the building down but yet it could be taken down by relatively small fires.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Ummm if I only need fires on 10 floors to bring those buildings down, who says I need 30 tons of thermite? Maybe I only need 5000 pounds of it to take out key points every 20 floors or so? You can't say that it would take a huge amount of well placed charges to take the building down but yet it could be taken down by relatively small fires.



i'm gonna go slow because i am stupid.

how did they ignite the thermite?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

I think instead of your maybe's and if's.... I'll go with the explosive experts.

The conspiracy has far too many holes in it to be considered valid. 

Of course like any good science.... the first flaw revealed dispels the theory.

So, this means................ drum roll. .......................... you aren't on the side of good science. Your side is filled with professional and political HACKS.

Good Company indeed.

I'll side with the NYPD and the NYFD and the other 10000 or so eye witnesses. 

All the qualified ppl that were there that day DISAGREE with you.... that's a real clue to how far off base you really are.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm gonna go slow because i am stupid.
> 
> how did they ignite the thermite?


I would think they would use a common wireless initiation device, something like this:






Thats a HiExTeleblaster II Remote Blast initiation system. No wires needed, no det cord strung out everywhere needed either. Initiate Instantly or delayed, its all programmable for multiple uses.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I would think they would use a common wireless initiation device, something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






would that have burnt up in building #7?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

If you actually read my large post, you wouldn't even bother with the Thermite.

It's a weak argument with NO evidence of any kind.

Hey but don't let that stop you!! You're.... why you're inventing the real truth!!


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If you actually read my large post, you wouldn't even bother with the Thermite.
> 
> It's a weak argument with NO evidence of any kind.
> 
> Hey but don't let that stop you!! You're.... why you're inventing the real truth!!



Your right, there is no evidence of THERMITE. Just NANO THERMITE of which they have plenty of evidence of that.


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 3, 2009)

Nano-super thermite! Why is everyone hung up on regular old thermite? Anyone looked into this stuff and who can or could make/use it in 2001. This stuff can be painted on.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

Actually, the Nano thermite is an even weaker explanation.

Of course you, like all ppl wrapped up in a conspiracy of circular logic ( a common malady of the religious by the way), you ignore all the other data which blows holes all through your theory.

If you can find just ONE piece that can't be explained, then your still in the game. WRONG!!!! 

That's not the way logic works.

that's not the way science works.

The Truthers are not using good science, and everyone sees it except a few fringe elements who are somehow personally wrapped up in mistrust and delusional thinking.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 3, 2009)

Nano Thermite WAS found in the dust....
Where did it come from? Did they store it there or somthin?
Are you saying i am "crazy" for asking a simple question that you nor me can answer so dont that make us BOTH crazy?
And the 80,000 folks in NY (thats includes NYPD and NYFD and eye witness's) Are they all just "crazy"? we all get our info from the same place dont we?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 3, 2009)

OK, this has gone way too far. All you truther idiots are doing is repeating the same old tired arguments over and over regardless of the fact that we have disproved every claim you have made. And every time someone posts something you can't refute you just pretend you didn't see it and repeat yourself again. 

None of you have provided a single logical argument. None of you are doing anything to advance your position or offer anything new. The only thing you guys are doing is providing mindless contradiction and restating logical fallacies over and over and over and over and over. And you do this despite the fact that I explained the fallacious nature of your statements numerous times. All you do is ignore what doesn't fit your theory and hope it goes away.

I am done here and I encourage all the other sane, rational posters to stop wasting your time. These truthers obviously have mental issues and they are obviously incapable of viewing the issue with reason. Even though we have mopped the floor with these morons, none of us will ever convince them of the truth because they don't care what the truth is. They want or need to believe 911 was a conspiracy and they will never accept anything else regardless of how conclusive the proof is.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

Okay, I tried to tell you not to go to Nano Thermite. Of course you all ignore all the rest of the GAPING holes in your logic. It's non-sense.

here's ur nano thermite answer.... 

*Thermite was found at Ground Zero*





*FALSE*


*Only Elements "Associated" With Thermite Were Found*

The claim that Thermate (or thermite) was discovered at Ground Zero arose from tests Professor Steven Jones performed.



He reported finding chemicals that are *associated* with thermite, and suggested: 

-----JONES QUOTE ON-------- 
We (3 physicists and a geologist) have conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), also X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Electron Microprobe analyses on residue samples from the scene. 

 We identify predominately iron, with very little chromium, along with uncommon chemical elements in abundance such as fluorine and manganese. Aluminum and sulfur are present (expected from thermate reactions). 

 1,3 Diphenylpropane was observed in dust, and interesting bit of possibly corroborative evidence. 

 The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal still red after falling about 500 feet (150 m, discussed earlier), provide compelling evidence that thermite reaction compounds (aluminothermics) were used, *meaning thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers and WTC 7.* 
Journal of 911 Studies Source 
-------JONES QUOTE OFF-------------- 
  * How reasonable was this conclusion? *

Let's see if there was any other evidence (or lack of evidence) that Jones overlooked. 
 Professor Jones found Sulfur on his metal samples.  Sulfur is also a major component of the gypsum found in drywall used in the construction of modern office buildings. Jones' analysis occurred within the context of substantial quantities of sulfur supplied by the disintegration of many tons of drywall.  Thermate does not initiate a chain reaction or continuing combustion. Thermate burns hot by exhausting its fuel within a few seconds or minutes. Once its specialized fuel is consumed, the thermate reaction terminates.[1]
Thermate is the specific name for the formulation used by the U.S. military, and is composed of thermite (68.7%), barium nitrate (29%), sulphur (2%), and fillers (0.3%). It is used as an incendiary device (the Barium nitrate increases the incendiary effect) and can be used for welding.

Thermite, by itself, (which Professor Jones is talking about) has a small radius of effect and burns with little flame. Thermate is specially formulated to increases the flame and burn radius.
*Where's the Barium Nitrate?*

Jones didn't report any Barium Nitrate, another element associated with Thermate reactions. Some have claimed that the lack of the Barium Nitrate is telling because it is a much more significant part of Thermate reactions. However, Thermite with Barium Nitrate as accelerant would not be amenable to column cutting as it is causes an explosive exothermic reaction.

Steven Jones responded:
_"__"It is true that the military form of thermate, thermate-TH-3, contains a large amount of barium nitrate. I never said I had found the signature of thermate-TH-3. Rather, as I explained in my talk, variations are easily done using aluminum, sulfur, and various metal oxides and oxidizers, and what I've shown evidence for is the basic signature of thermite/thermate-analogs."_
  *Any Other Possible Sources for These Elements?*

There is no clear evidence that the elements Jones reported finding were found in proportions that match what youd expect from a Thermate reaction. So we must ask, are there other sources for the elements he did find? 

Jones main concern was finding what he called, "uncommon chemical elements in abundance". But with the destruction of such a large building one would expect to find a wide range of elements that may be uncommon elsewhere. This is exactly what happened.

A USGS study listed the following major elements discovered in samples of WTC dust: Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. The study reported these elements without mentioning that any of them were out of the ordinary. Four of these elements were reported by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), but the authors of the USGS survey didn't seem to require any alternative explanation for them at all. 

-----QUOTE ON------- 
The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials. 

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts. 
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/ 
-----------QUOTE OFF---------- 

Another study reported similarly: 

-----QUOTE ON------ 
The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline... 
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html 
------QUOTE OFF-------- 

Neither study was analyzing metal samples, so cant be directly compared with that part of Professor Jones research, but this illustrates that many of these elements arent as uncommon as might be suggested. And is seems there are other possible sources for these chemicals at the WTC site, which means that the existence of Thermite was not at all a forgone conclusion based on Jones' study.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 3, 2009)

Crackerjack, you have done a great job but it doesn't matter what you post. These are deranged individuals who will never get it. Don't waste any more time on them; its futile.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

Yes, but I try to pull some out of the insanity that is the "truther" conspiracy.

I also do it for ppl who read but don't post.

Maybe I can save a few of them from falling into the trap of forming a conclusion before you examine the data.

There's good science, and there's bad science. This is bad science.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 3, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> none of us will ever convince them of the truth because they don't care what the truth is.


What is the truth rick? I DONT CARE?, there are questions you can not answer too , does that not make you just like me?

everything you just said apply's to you. I asked a question and you went strait back to the "all people with questions are nutts theory" 

If you want to go back and forth with words , i am not the one (i speak from heart not from wiki or goggle), but drama seems to shut you up everytime? and please dont be "done" we need you for the cause. We are still waiting to see what reb has to say about all this. You guys have ONE _professer _to back you up and we show you hundreds but they have no "credibility"? its sick how you guys think.... YOU are why we are still at war.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

The fact remains that the 9/11 theory is rife with holes. If you are trying to convince ppl with scientific data, you have ALREADY LOST!!!!

People tend to believe their eyes. people tend to believe the Professionals who were actually at the site of the event at the time it happened. Where's all those ppl's names on your precious list? There aren't any..... your list is filled with johnny come lately's and opportunists seeking a bit of spotlight

In the end, most QUALIFIED ppl have already determined that there is no conspiracy. I can tell you from personal experience that my Father worked on the World Trade Towers, as well as all the other giant projects of NYC. My Grandad worked on the Empire State Building. They both worked on the Holland & Lincoln Tunnel. Rockefeller Center, the MET. Point being they did the big stuff, and they knew their stuff. They knew every inch of those projects. At that level of expertise, you know the entire structure, not just your trade. In their cases, both were Master Electricians and both were supervisors. They made the big decisions and then oversaw every cable run. If they didn't see it, their next in lines did. Those big projects were seriously scrutinized. It was all cutting edge technology at the time. The amount of expertise wielded into those projects could not be matched today. That level of craftsmanship has declined in this country. None the less.....


Now my Grandad has passed on, but I am sure he would echo my fathers *derision* of you folks. He thinks you're all so easily duped. I concur.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 3, 2009)

So easily Duped.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

Yes indeed. Your hat is on backwards and now you think you can see ppl sneaking up on you.

It's no way to live. In the end most conspiracy LEVEL 5's fit a very specific psychological pattern. None of it is good.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 3, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> What is the truth rick? I DONT CARE?, there are questions you can not answer too , does that not make you just like me?
> 
> everything you just said apply's to you. I asked a question and you went strait back to the "all people with questions are nutts theory"
> 
> If you want to go back and forth with words , i am not the one (i speak from heart not from wiki or goggle), but drama seems to shut you up everytime? and please dont be "done" we need you for the cause. We are still waiting to see what reb has to say about all this. You guys have ONE _professer _to back you up and we show you hundreds but they have no "credibility"? its sick how you guys think.... YOU are why we are still at war.



yeah, well you're fat!!!!


----------



## Some Ironic PUN About Pot (Oct 3, 2009)

I dont think I have ever seen so much ignorance in one place.

Then again, I have never attended a conservative convention.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 4, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> yeah, well you're fat!!!!


I figured this was appropriate for everyone that doesn't agree with me 

[youtube]MNQ5V740LDY[/youtube]


Edit: I originally had this one in there, but its flagged for the F-Bomb about 20 times in 30m seconds so it won't embed.

[youtube]dxg9SJXhjnQ[/youtube]






*I LAUGHED!!!!*


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> There are only 5 levels, so that's bad news for GR.
> 
> Rabbits did make the hole but they left a long time ago, to get away from the "neighbors".


I'd must rather be down the rabbit hole than be a disinformation agent like you. It pretty obvious you are since you are on the board more than the mods. Therefore anything you post can be totally disregarded and labeled disinformation.kiss-ass


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 4, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Why do you make posts that do nothing to strengthen your argument? See the following fallacy.
> 
> *Description of Appeal to Belief*


Aw ... what's the matter? Can't handle being totally owned by NoDrama? Too bad.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

You keep reinforcing your own delusion.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 4, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Aw ... what's the matter? Can't handle being totally owned by NoDrama? Too bad.




It happens every time. If you or drama are not here , they will sit on here all day "outwording" me but you guys step in and they have nothing more to say? Is this a battle of who can out-word who? Cause if thats the case, then i will go ahead and disregard all post of rick.....now cj is different , that IS a disinfo agent.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You keep reinforcing your own delusion.


]
The fact speak for itself with 98% activity here? ... how many of posters on the political forum has a 98% activity? ... that's a full time job. You are not fooling most of us. Disinformation agent ... fact.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 4, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> It happens every time. If you or drama are not here , they will sit on here all day "outwording" me but you guys step in and they have nothing more to say? Is this a battle of who can out-word who? Cause if thats the case, then i will go ahead and disregard all post of rick.....now cj is different , that IS a disinfo agent.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have been disregarding everything I have said in all of my posts because you don't have an answer. I have responded to every post you have made and have rubbed your nose in it every time. When I do, you just hide behind the same stupid posts over and over and over and over. It's like you are plugging your ears and chanting lalalalalala real loud so you can't hear what people say.

"What about the 80,000 people that want an investigation" You say ad-infinitum.

Who gives a shit about the 80,000 - what about the 100 million who think you are an idiot? By your own logic, that proves you are an idiot does it not?

Of course you don't have the nads to respond to that so you instead go back to repeating your self like a broken record.

If you half as annoying in real life as you have been in this thread it is no wonder you need goad people on the internet.

Again, I repeat. You have not made a single point that has not been shot down. You have done nothing to further your argument or to make your points stronger. All you have done is repeat the same incorrect claims over and over regardless of how many times people prove they are wrong.

For example, you posted a picture of beams you insist were cut by thermite. We showed you a picture of a rescue worker cutting the beams with a torch. So what did you do, you ignored the photo and simply repeated your self.

Now, all you will do is respond with yet another childish lie about how I haven't responded to anything you have said despite the fact that I responded to everything you have said.

I guess you go by the old saying "a lie repeated often enough will eventually become true."

You sir are a super troll.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 4, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> You have been disregarding everything I have said in all of my posts because you don't have an answer.


You are the one that doesn't have an answer ... No cream you ... accept it.


RickWhite said:


> I have responded to every post you have made and have rubbed your nose in it every time.


Oh really ... when was that?


RickWhite said:


> When I do, you just hide behind the same stupid posts over and over and over and over. It's like you are plugging your ears and chanting lalalalalala real loud so you can't hear what people say.


And when we post an answer you disregard it, no surprises there.



RickWhite said:


> "What about the 80,000 people that want an investigation" You say ad-infinitum.
> 
> Who gives a shit about the 80,000 -


The 80,000 plus the majority of people that want a real investigation that's who. Just because you don't care about war crimes doesn't mean the majority of us don't.


RickWhite said:


> what about the 100 million who think you are an idiot? By your own logic, that proves you are an idiot does it not?


Oh I can't wait to see a link to prove that ...but I'm not going to hold my breath ... know why ... because there isn't anything to prove it Bwaa ha ha ha.



RickWhite said:


> Of course you don't have the nads to respond to that so you instead go back to repeating your self like a broken record.


You mean like you who keeps saying you are done with this thread ... you mean like that broken record?



RickWhite said:


> If you half as annoying in real life as you have been in this thread it is no wonder you need goad people on the internet.


What's your excuse?
 


RickWhite said:


> Again, I repeat. You have not made a single point that has not been shot down.


Like all disinformation agents ... only in your mind. 



RickWhite said:


> You have done nothing to further your argument or to make your points stronger.


Merely an opinion from a disinformationalist ... which means nothing here.



RickWhite said:


> All you have done is repeat the same incorrect claims over and over regardless of how many times people prove they are wrong.


It's you who are repeating incorrect claims ...your attempt to confirm the government's conspiracy theory has failed.



RickWhite said:


> For example, you posted a picture of beams you insist were cut by thermite. We showed you a picture of a rescue worker cutting the beams with a torch.


Which was a bullshit picture, because you don't see any complete cuts ... just a worker up around the steel nothing more.



RickWhite said:


> So what did you do, you ignored the photo and simply repeated your self.


Why should he respond to a picture that has already been debunked.



RickWhite said:


> Now, all you will do is respond with yet another childish lie about how I haven't responded to anything you have said despite the fact that I responded to everything you have said.


It's was because he was looking for facts and not bullshit?



RickWhite said:


> I guess you go by the old saying "a lie repeated often enough will eventually become true."
> 
> You sir are a super troll.


It certainly takes one to know one doesn't it? Your are the troll you keep claiming you are through with this thread, yet you can't seem to help posting more disinformation ... why is that?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> It happens every time. If you or drama are not here , they will sit on here all day "outwording" me but you guys step in and they have nothing more to say? Is this a battle of who can out-word who? Cause if thats the case, then i will go ahead and disregard all post of rick.....now cj is different , that IS a disinfo agent.



I post when I'm around...it has nothing to do with GR. He's just as wrong as you are...... 

He has no "special" facts to back the nonsense up with.

You folks simply ignore anything which disrupts your perspective.

The problem is..... ur flailing at windmills.

No one thinks you are correct. The Truthers are going to remain a fringe element and the 9/11 re-investigation will not occur. 

Of course this will REINFORCE that you were right all along ...  

*You folks are lost in circular logic. This thread does not make any of you seem particularly bright. Not by a long shot.


*


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I post when I'm around...it has nothing to do with GR. He's just as wrong as you are......
> 
> He has no "special" facts to back the nonsense up with.
> 
> ...


Actually it makes them look like childish idiots. Look at the putz above who multiquoted my post and responded like a 5 year old to each line. Of course his responses were essentially the equivalent of "I know you are but what an I?"

At this point it is clear to any rational person that the truthers have had their dicks knocked in the dirt at every turn and have resorted to pure unadulterated mindless contradiction.

They all sound exactly like John Cleese in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

They sound just like the Bible thumpers as well. A bit of irony. But it says so right here on UTube!!! See??!!??


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 4, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> They sound just like the Bible thumpers as well. A bit of irony. But it says so right here on UTube!!! See??!!??


I hear that. It's the same type of circular reasoning.

A) God exists because the Bible says so and the bible is the word of God.

B) 911 was a conspiracy because the people who believe it was a conspiracy say so.

I also like the appeal to common belief that the one idiot keeps repeating like a broken record. 

"What about the 80,000 people who want an investigation? If 80,000 people believe it was a conspiracy it must be a conspiracy."

Evidently the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of Americans think that truthers are idiots doesn't prove however that truthers are idiots. Evidently their own logic only hold when it supports their delusions.

Honestly nothing they say makes any more sense than that video I posted. How irritating.


----------



## esotica (Oct 4, 2009)

Check out the Zietgeist film...part II is about 9/11 being an inside job that, although probably mostly propaganda, it is really good


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

Yes, it's good propaganda. But it's not good. It's not a good sign that our society is healthy. 

People are falling into mistrust perceptions, which others are far too willing to manipulate and amplify. It's a cascade of manipulation and gullibility and mistrust, all reinforcing the other.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I post when I'm around...it has nothing to do with GR. He's just as wrong as you are......


You mean like I'm wrong about 911? NOT



CrackerJax said:


> He has no "special" facts to back the nonsense up with.


No nothing special ... just the *fact* that you have a 98% activity ... that's mean you have to be here pretty much all day ... hell the mod isn't even here that much ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together.



CrackerJax said:


> You folks simply ignore anything which disrupts your perspective.


You mean like you? Claim we have nothing ... but if we didn't have anything you wouldn't be spamming this thread.



CrackerJax said:


> The problem is..... ur flailing at windmills.


It only seems to be a problem for you and your like.



CrackerJax said:


> No one thinks you are correct.


Well ... most of us knows that's a lie ... anyone that bothers to read this thread that is.



CrackerJax said:


> The Truthers are going to remain a fringe element and the 9/11 re-investigation will not occur.


All the polls indicate we are not. But you keep trying to lie about it. It suits you.



CrackerJax said:


> Of course this will REINFORCE that you were right all along ...


The facts speak for themselves ... that is why you continue to push disinformation, propaganda and lies.



CrackerJax said:


> *You folks are lost in circular logic. This thread does not make any of you seem particularly bright. Not by a long shot.
> *


Yet you keep posting ... when you feel people are checking out this thread ...  is as  does.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 5, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Actually it makes them look like childish idiots.


Oh really? And what does that make you? You keep claiming you are done with us "idiots" yet you keep posting ... why is that?



RickWhite said:


> Look at the putz above who multiquoted my post and responded like a 5 year old to each line.


I'd figure it would be easier for you to comprehend ... apparently not.



RickWhite said:


> Of course his responses were essentially the equivalent of "I know you are but what an I?"


... and you still keep posting ... why?



RickWhite said:


> At this point it is clear to any rational person that the truthers have had their dicks knocked in the dirt at every turn and have resorted to pure unadulterated mindless contradiction.


Aw ... poor baby ... can't handle the facts in this thread so you must resort to insults ... too bad... so sad... but I don't blame you the way No owned you in his post.



RickWhite said:


> They all sound exactly like John Cleese in this video.


Yeah ... all you deniers/disinformation agents love to side track the issue ... it doesn't work ... but you love it just the same.kiss-ass


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

Nice reposnses GR, but they don't further your credibility by name calling and personal insults.

Just read the writing on the wall.... if you can.

The fact that you are so wrapped up in believing your govt. is that poisonous is a sign of some deeper mental issue.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The fact that you are so wrapped up in believing your govt. is that poisonous is a sign of some deeper mental issue.


The fact that you are on the boards 98% of the time pushing a right wing agenda is a clear sign. People have eyes ... most are not as stupid as you would like to believe. It's pretty obvious what you are and what you are doing ... but it doesn't work. Too bad.
No matter how much disinformation you  people are going to continue to push for a real investigation, and there isn't a damn thing you or the government can do about it ... other than post disinformation.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

I push no right wing agenda at all. I push logic and fiscal responsibility, that's all. That's not either left or right, that's just smart thinking.

I have a high activity rate for sure, but hey , *you retire at 45* and get back to me. then I'll tell you how you can spend *UR* time.... k? 

*With success, brings privilege*, in this case that privilege is MY time. 

You have the disinformation, not us. You make outrageous claims, not us. You seem to be consumed by it, not us.

You should spend at least as many hours studying the psychology of conspiracy thinkers as you do reinforcing your delusion.

Yelling and constantly repeating urself only weakens your stance.

In the end GR, you are helping to disprove what you profess.

We're only just sitting on the sidelines with popcorn and bongs, watching you all unravel.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I push no right wing agenda at all. I push logic and fiscal responsibility, that's all. That's not either left or right, that's just smart thinking.
> 
> I have a high activity rate for sure, but hey , *you retire at 45* and get back to me. then I'll tell you how you can spend *UR* time.... k?
> 
> *With success, brings privilege*, in this case that privilege is MY time.


 Congrats

and agreed.


> You have the disinformation, not us. You make outrageous claims, not us. You seem to be consumed by it, not us.


That's the thing ... it's not that outrageous. The outrageous claims such as aliens and the devil being involved is what fucks up this whole "fight for truth".


> We're only just sitting on the sidelines with popcorn and bongs, watching you all unravel.


Along with engineers and architects 

You deniers are the "bible thumpers"... "the 9/11 report said" "the 9/11 report said"


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

I am not so quick to disregard the entire NYPD and NYFD and all the eyewitnesses to the event.

That's where the outrageous claims come in. It impunes the integrity of those that were there, risking their lives. If there was foul play, surely the NYFD and NYPD would have noticed it. After all, it was them personally that were there inside those nightmare buildings on fire. 

They say it's not possible and have explained most of the 9/11 truther data. I'll stick with them.

So far, the conspiracy ppl have NO SMOKING GUN, just innuendo and reverse engineered theorems, which usually indicate a flawed methodology. this is no exception.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I am not so quick to *disregard the entire NYPD and NYFD *and all the eyewitnesses to the event.
> 
> That's where the outrageous claims come in. It impunes the integrity of those that were there, risking their lives. If there was foul play, *surely the NYFD and NYPD would have noticed it*. After all, it was them personally that were there inside those nightmare buildings on fire.
> 
> They say it's not possible and have explained most of the 9/11 truther data. I'll stick with them.


i love you cracka... but quit talking out of your butt. 


[youtube]SXD3bAbZCow[/youtube]

We truthers are not saying the PD and FD aren't heroes, because they were that day. They saved many lives.

*
You might want to check out this site. http://firefightersfor911truth.org/*


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

uhhhh, ur kidding right?

Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.

When someone says "as if" they don't mean that's what happened. They are merely using a term in which all ppl are familiar with. 

There's a difference. A big one. Your interpretation it not logical.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I push no right wing agenda at all. I push logic and fiscal responsibility, that's all. That's not either left or right, that's just smart thinking.
> 
> I have a high activity rate for sure, but hey , *you retire at 45* and get back to me. then I'll tell you how you can spend *UR* time.... k?
> 
> ...


Bwaa ha ha ha ... now that is too funny! That's what I love about disinformationalists ... you deny the obvious and really expect us to believe you. Now that is too funny. I can never drink or eat reading your post, something might fly out of my nose from laughing so hard.
So do they pay you by the hour or are you on salary? Must be a drag to have to be on line all day long everyday. And if you are doing this for free ... you are a bigger  than I took you for.
It doesn't really matter how much disinformation you post ... people are STILL going to demand a real investigation no matter how long it takes. The pressure is obviously working ...l see disinformation agents spending long hours on line trying to quell the truth ... too bad for you it's not working.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> uhhhh, ur kidding right?
> 
> Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.
> 
> ...


Because they don't know anything about demolition. They put out fires for a living... don't take down buildings. They used "as if" because they don't know what happened...
(and i dont know what happened either)


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> uhhhh, ur kidding right?
> 
> Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.
> 
> ...


Oh yeah right ... just like the firefighters statements about hearing explosions way back on page 21 post 206, on page 34 post 339, F.D.N.Y. Craig Carlsen statement on page 64 post 630, page 148 post 1470, more firefighter statements of hearing explosions, and that just a few of the many reports I have posted in this thread about the firefighters statements that they heard explosions along with survivors ... it only a matter of "interpetation" when you are trying to push disinformation.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

So you think gigantic buildings coming down wouldn't make explosion sounds? 

No one has ever said, no eye witness rather, has ever said they heard explosions. The amount of explosions needed to take down those towers would have been DEAFENING....

Oh, but then you guys will now disregard your own argument of the explosions and switch back to nano thermite... right? 

The sort of explosions needed would have blown windows out for blocks.... never happened. Seismic reading? Nope.

No explosions... not demolition explosions anyway. How many water heaters in that building by the way? Fire, water heater... boom.... how many? 

What happens when high power cables are compromised? Ever hear two phases of electricity get crossed at high voltage? I have. Like a bomb.

You folks are delusional, or easily fooled. UR choice.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> uhhhh, ur kidding right?
> 
> Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.
> 
> ...



Yeah because " It was like they used detonators you know? Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom" yep thats not descriptive of demo at all, nope not at all, and when all those people said " Explosion" they really meant to say " Collapse" right? The interpretation is completely legitimate. We have evidence , you have nothing.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

They were trying to convey it in terms ppl would understand.

that guy went down as if a safe dropped on him. Now to you, it must mean a safe fell from somewhere.... 

They were being asked general questions, they gave general answers. "As If" and "like" are not the same as "that was the cause".

But you guys keep reading between the lines of the book. You'll do fine until the class is tested on the material.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 6, 2009)

Flight 93: the flight that supposedly brave passengers stood up against the hijackers, resulting in a crashed plane



the only problem is.... no plane wreckage.... no bodies...... no scheduled flight of flight 93 on 9/11

the county coroner said "to this day i have not seen a single drop of blood"




if there is no wreck.... no bodies.... no "missing" people from this flight...... why do we still think this happened?


it didnt...


to add more to the flight 93 mystery, cell phone calls were some how made at 30,000 feet

when this was tried again in a scientific study, at 30,000 feet the person doing the study had a 0.006 percent success rate in establishing a call


also, one of the people that called their mothers to say what what was happening said this

"hello mom? this is *full name*"

when was the last time you called your mom and said hi mom this is steven jobe or whatever your name is

also, in the same phone conversation, where he says the flight has been taken over, the voice asks the mother at least 4 time

"you believe me dont you mom?" "you believe me right?"

and the flight attendant that called 911 saying that 6 or so people were stabbed and dying... she doesnt sound like a woman watching people dying at all

her voice is calm...cool...collected...almost like she is reading it off of a peice of paper


or this? a camera sitting on a tripod....

at :20 seconds, the tripod shakes, and about 12 seconds later the building collapses

eyewitnesses testify this was another explosion, one of many


yet this is not listed in the official report.... why?


again, :20 seconds, an explosion rocks the ground, shaking the tripod which is on top of another building

[youtube]ZVDaAufKnLc[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 6, 2009)

Blah blah blah..... it's old stuff and has been answered. 

No one piece of evidence can make your case. You need it ALL. If any part of your scenario is found wanting (and bunches are already), your theory falls apart.

Facts are you can't prove explosions took down the WTT's, no matter how many youtube's are made.

This is a dustbin issue to the American ppl.

Planes loaded with jet fuel slammed into the towers at over 500mph. That's the bottom line.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 6, 2009)

I always laugh when people say " Jet Fuel" As if saying it makes it a somehow volatile substance. Most people don't realize that Jet Fuel ( Or Jet-A) is actually in essence very dirty diesel fuel, it does not have a high octane rating , it has alot of waxes floating in it, sometimes they will add oxidizers to the fuel to increase high altittude operations. You could throw lit matches into a pool of jet fuel and most likely they would just extinguish themselves akin to throwing a match into a pool of water.The Octane rating of Jet fuel is somewhere in the area of 15 to 25. Gasoline(Mogas) is rated at 87-93 and Aviation fuel(aka AVGAS Which most people think is jet fuel) which can have an extremely volatile octane rating of 115-145.

Jet Fuel..not that big a deal.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Facts are you can't prove explosions took down the WTT's,
> 
> 
> This is a dustbin issue to the American ppl.



you cant prove they didnt


and as long as i walk this earth there will always be people who dont think its such a dustbin issue


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 7, 2009)

I don't need to prove anything ... you do. 

See how that works? 

See why the 9/11 BS is going nowhere with the public? 

Outrageous claims demand outrageous *PROOF. A signed list and a bunch of reverse engineered theories is not even close to being proof.*


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I don't need to prove anything ... you do.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> ...



if your in THIS thread you are gonna need some proof to prove us wrong eh? Everytime someone brings up somthing new (to you) all you can say is: "its been debunked already" the problem is that you cannot provide ANY facts or evidence to prove us wrong...............If you not need to prove anything then why are you still here.... Are you talking to yourself ? you are sittin in a room with a bunch of "crazy's" or "truthers" (whatever you would like to call us) and you make an "outrageous" claim about 500mph and jet fuel but you have NO proof . you say NYPD and FD , i show you barry jennings and you....... say "its already been debunked" 
I highly doubt crack gets paid for this disinfo cause his boss would be pissed and fire him by now. i would believe if someone was getting paid for somthing they would probably supply him with some real good evidence to PROVE us wrong....... but in cracks case he is just usin the same circular logic that he talks down on soooo much.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 7, 2009)

We can't prove explosives took down the buildings just like you can't prove it was a collapse. Its a fucking mystery and there are so many things that don't add up and that is why we want another investigation.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 7, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> We can't prove explosives took down the buildings just like you can't prove it was a collapse. Its a fucking mystery and there are so many things that don't add up and that is why we want another investigation.


And that is the bottom line.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I don't need to prove anything ... you do.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> ...


a commission report that was set up to fail, ommitted several things, was not allowed to talk about certain things, started late, did not have enough funding, and 60% of commission report members have come out and said its false



thats not proof either

if you have nothing to refute what we are saying... that makes us wrong?

can i buy some weed from you?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 7, 2009)

i was reading a yahoo headline and came across this :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091007/ts_nm/us_afghanistan_taliban_anniversary

and if you dont wanna click on it then this is the main part i wanna point out



> In the statement, the Taliban said the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan for its refusal to hand over al Qaeda leaders, was hasty and unjustified. Washington had not given leaders of the movement any proof to show the involvement of al Qaeda in the September 11 attacks, it said.
> Washington was using the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq as part of its expansionist goals in the Middle East, central and southeast Asia, it said.


Now what is so hard to understand about *why* we would like a new investigation?
That makes us "theorist"? <---not 100% sure what that word means , so im not one of those 
That makes us "delusional" ? <--- no , i am not *that *far gone yet...
i mean fuck they cant even show al qaeda proof that al qaeda caused 911 ? 

(by the way , i got this from yahoo news so the story might be accurate it might not be..... its the news and i do not believe everything told to me , whether it be utube or mainstream media)


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 8, 2009)

so naive.... they sense a way out to blame the USA on this one..... a way out given by YOU NUTJOBS! 

Like I said, they aren't stupid...... they see an opportunity. 

You guys are so naive.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 8, 2009)

Funny, they keep saying "just look at the video; it was obviously a controlled demo based on the rate the buildings fell."

What they never mention is that this would be the only controlled demolition in history in which the building started falling *from the top instead of the bottom*. That is part of the conspiracy mindset; ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your theory.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 8, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Funny, they keep saying "just look at the video; it was obviously a controlled demo based on the rate the buildings fell."
> 
> What they never mention is that this would be the only controlled demolition in history in which the building started falling *from the top instead of the bottom*. That is part of the conspiracy mindset; ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your theory.


uh oh, you might have us on somthing ricky.... i doubt it but i WILL look into it. Thats why you are good for this thread, at least u can come with a half way reasonable argument. By the way CJ is makin you look bad with all the un-reasonable bullshit he comes with.
wb


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> they sense a way out to blame the USA on this one....


i guess if that is why i am here then u have a good reason to call us "nutjobs"
just a way out, yea that sounds good would love a way out of.......WHAT?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 8, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Funny, they keep saying "just look at the video; it was obviously a controlled demo based on the rate the buildings fell."
> 
> What they never mention is that this would be the only controlled demolition in history in which the building started falling *from the top instead of the bottom*. That is part of the conspiracy mindset; ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your theory.



It would also be the first time in history that a fire caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> so naive.... they sense a way out to blame the USA on this one..... a way out given by YOU NUTJOBS!
> 
> Like I said, they aren't stupid...... they see an opportunity.
> 
> You guys are so naive.


Yes, an opportunity to make massive piles of cash off 911 truth t-shirt sales. Get real now.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 8, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Funny, they keep saying "just look at the video; it was obviously a controlled demo based on the rate the buildings fell."
> 
> What they never mention is that this would be the only controlled demolition in history in which the building started falling *from the top instead of the bottom*. That is part of the conspiracy mindset; ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your theory.


Oh really? And what's your excuse?kiss-ass
top down demolition
[youtube]VZ1E2NPl-s8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Hello? Are we awake now?


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 8, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Oh really? And what's your excuse?kiss-ass
> top down demolition
> [youtube]VZ1E2NPl-s8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
> Hello? Are we awake now?



BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Total fucking pwnage.

+rep, GrowREbel.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 8, 2009)

I can hardly wait for the rebuttal.


----------



## hom36rown (Oct 8, 2009)

Doob...don't tell me youre a truther too? A truther who is in favor of more government control, how exactly does that work? The government supposedly blew up the WTC, yet you'd like to give the government more power?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 8, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Doob...don't tell me youre a truther too? A truther who is in favor of more government control, how exactly does that work? The government supposedly blew up the WTC, yet you'd like to give the government more power?


This true, doob?



That's a first...


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 8, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> It would also be the first time in history that a fire caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.


A fire just brought down a freeway overpass on I75 and 9 mile road. This overpass is light years stronger than any building. It is designed to hold millions of pounds and it isn't very long and yet had massive support. This is Detroit so they anticipate super heavy loads. Why is it the overpass fell?

Did you know steel loses 60% of its strength at half of its melting temperature? At this point it can not hold its own weight - it is like putty. The fire in the WTC was more than sufficient to cause failure - this is well established.

Besides this, the fact still remains that the WTC started collapsing from the area where the jet hit and not from the bottom. This proves a controlled demolition could not have taken place.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 8, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Doob...don't tell me youre a truther too? A truther who is in favor of more government control, how exactly does that work? The government supposedly blew up the WTC, yet you'd like to give the government more power?


I'm not in favor of more government control.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I do believe we were lied to (or at least "misled") as to who was behind the attacks on 9/11. I'm not convinced the government was behind it (though I wouldn't put it past George W.), but I don't think it was Al-Qaeda, either.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 8, 2009)

A highway overpass that's stronger than a 110-story STEEL skyscraper?

LOL!!!!!!!!


----------



## Keenly (Oct 9, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> A highway overpass that's stronger than a 110-story STEEL skyscraper?
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!


yeah im with you on that one doob


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 9, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Doob...don't tell me youre a truther too? A truther who is in favor of more government control, how exactly does that work? The government supposedly blew up the WTC, yet you'd like to give the government more power?


How do you figure that? We need the government to pay for the investigation, but we don't need them to do the investigating ... if we did we wouldn't get anywhere. We want an independent investigation non-partisan, with subpoena power, and sever penalties for lying while under oath. No disregarding important evidence. You have to explain how this would give the government more power. 



RickWhite said:


> A fire just brought down a freeway overpass on I75 and 9 mile road. This overpass is light years stronger than any building. It is designed to hold millions of pounds and it isn't very long and yet had massive support. This is Detroit so they anticipate super heavy loads. Why is it the overpass fell?
> 
> Did you know steel loses 60% of its strength at half of its melting temperature? At this point it can not hold its own weight - it is like putty. The fire in the WTC was more than sufficient to cause failure - this is well established.
> 
> Besides this, the fact still remains that the WTC started collapsing from the area where the jet hit and not from the bottom. This proves a controlled demolition could not have taken place.


Been there done this ... way back on page 38 ... several pages on it, was proven to be bogus. The bridge and the skyscraper were not design the same. You have nothing to support the government's conspiracy theory.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 9, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> How do you figure that? We need the government to pay for the investigation, but we don't need them to do the investigating ... if we did we wouldn't get anywhere. We want an independent investigation non-partisan, with subpoena power, and sever penalties for lying while under oath. No disregarding important evidence. You have to explain how this would give the government more power.
> 
> 
> Been there done this ... way back on page 38 ... several pages on it, was proven to be bogus. The bridge and the skyscraper were not design the same. You have nothing to support the government's conspiracy theory.


How was this proved bogus? I drive past this spot twice a day. Can you elaborate?

You guys think a building meant to support only the weight of a given amount of people, with a full load is designed with as much overhead as an empty freeway overpass designed to hold the weight of semi trucks pounding across it with 100,000 pound payloads?

How does that even begin to sound logical? Simple intuition should tell you that engineers design bridges with far more overhead than a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are not designed to hold massive payloads last I checked.

But regardless, the fact is that the massive steel I beams used to construct the overpass were weakened by fire enough to bring it down, and this was with no load on it. How exactly does this not demonstrate that significant fires can cause steel structures to fail? Please be specific.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 9, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> How was this proved bogus? I drive past this spot twice a day. Can you elaborate?
> 
> You guys think a building meant to support only the weight of a given amount of people, with a full load is designed with as much overhead as an empty freeway overpass designed to hold the weight of semi trucks pounding across it with 100,000 pound payloads?
> 
> ...


Better check again. A skyscraper not only has to support the weight of the people and objects inside of it, but IT'S OWN WEIGHT AS WELL. (experts calculate the weight of the WTC towers at around 500,000 TONS)

A 100 story skyscraper is exponentially heavier than a 20 ft tall, 30ft long highway overpass.

Highway overpasses are constructed of steel REINFORCED concrete. They are not constructed of solid steel.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 9, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Better check again. A skyscraper not only has to support the weight of the people and objects inside of it, but IT'S OWN WEIGHT AS WELL. (experts calculate the weight of the WTC towers at around 500,000 TONS)
> 
> A 100 story skyscraper is exponentially heavier than a 20 ft tall, 30ft long highway overpass.
> 
> Highway overpasses are constructed of steel REINFORCED concrete. They are not constructed of solid steel.


Around here they are mainly steel I beam construction as they are old. The concrete goes on top. And they are more like 100' long or more.

I don't know why I need to explain something so simple but evidently I do.

The question is not which is designed to hold more of its own weight, the question is what is designed to hold more ADDITIONAL force.

Also, a building distributes the weight straight down. The center of mass is directly over its base. A freeway overpass is designed to support weight along its span. This little fact of physics means that the overpass must be capable of loads a building would never see.

Think of an 8' 2X4. Will it hold more weight when placed on its end like a table leg or when laid flat spanning two objects with the weight on the center?

Compared to an overpass, a skyscraper is downright fragile. But regardless of which is stronger, the fact is fire did weaken the steel sufficiently to cause it to collapse under nothing but its own weight. This blows the "fire not hot enough" theory out of the water.

I checked back to page 38 and while this point was brought up it was never refuted. The one guy did say that everything had been debunked but never showed anything to support that claim.

Bottom like, the steel in the WTC would lose at least 60% or more of its strength at the estimated temperatures. Why is it difficult to see how a building hit by a jumbo jet and losing more than 60% of its strength would collapse? BTW, at 40% strength steel will sag under its own weight.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 9, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> How was this proved bogus? I drive past this spot twice a day. Can you elaborate?


Just start on page 38 and work your way up until it was proven to be bogus. There was a lot of discussion concerning the bridge, it was just use as a strawman argument to side step the real issue.



RickWhite said:


> You guys think a building meant to support only the weight of a given amount of people, with a full load is designed with as much overhead as an empty freeway overpass designed to hold the weight of semi trucks pounding across it with 100,000 pound payloads?


NoDrama already posted a source to prove your theory is wrong.




RickWhite said:


> How does that even begin to sound logical? Simple intuition should tell you that engineers design bridges with far more overhead than a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are not designed to hold massive payloads last I checked.


Source? Link?



RickWhite said:


> But regardless, the fact is that the massive steel I beams used to construct the overpass were weakened by fire enough to bring it down,


Not the entire bridge, and there is no question about what happen with the bridge, because there was nothing unusual about what happen. Unlike the WTC towers.



RickWhite said:


> and this was with no load on it. How exactly does this not demonstrate that significant fires can cause steel structures to fail? Please be specific.


Because if it were true ... other steel frame fireproof skyscrapers would have fallen it their own footprint in seconds due to fire ... and that hasn't happen.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 9, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Just start on page 38 and work your way up until it was proven to be bogus. There was a lot of discussion concerning the bridge, it was just use as a strawman argument to side step the real issue.
> 
> 
> NoDrama already posted a source to prove your theory is wrong.
> ...


Actually, your assumption about what other buildings would do is incorrect. The other buildings were not hit by a jumbo jet and they were constructed differently. The design of the WTC made it much more susceptible to such an incident, this is explained in great detail by numerous engineers.

As for the overpass, I can't seem to find a link; since you are so confident in your statement can you explain how this was disproved?

I did notice however that you made several references to the laws of physics, did you study physics in college?


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 9, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Actually, your assumption about what other buildings would do is incorrect.


It doesn't matter ... in your view that is ... whether I am correct or not ... what does matter is we the people who what the truth of what really happen that day continue pushing for a real investigation. Nothing else matters.



RickWhite said:


> The other buildings were not hit by a jumbo jet and they were constructed differently.


Source? Link? I didn't think so ... 



RickWhite said:


> The design of the WTC made it much more susceptible to such an incident, this is explained in great detail by numerous engineers.


Oh really? Well in that case you will have no problem providing a link to their "great detail" Right? I won't hold my breath though.



RickWhite said:


> As for the overpass, I can't seem to find a link; since you are so confident in your statement can you explain how this was disproved?


Been there done that ... if you don't want to take the time to look where I told you that's your problem.



RickWhite said:


> I did notice however that you made several references to the laws of physics, did you study physics in college?


Yes I did, but I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as the scientists and engineers that found evidence of the towers being demo.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 9, 2009)

I will quote myself here.





NoDrama said:


> I got this from:..http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11
> 
> 
> The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:
> ...


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 9, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> It doesn't matter ... in your view that is ... whether I am correct or not ... what does matter is we the people who what the truth of what really happen that day continue pushing for a real investigation. Nothing else matters.
> 
> 
> Source? Link? I didn't think so ...
> ...


If you are going to keep chopping up every post into single sentences you might want to at least respond to them with something meaningful. None of your responses even make sense. 

You need a source to show that the WTC was constructed differently than most buildings, are you joking? This is common knowledge; even people on your side fully acknowledge this so why do you need a source? Here - 10 seconds on Google.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

Also, I did look for a response to the overpass issue. I looked on several pages and didn't find one.

Bottom line, nothing in your post even comes close to a rebuttal of anything I said. What you posted is the equivalent of a child saying "nu uh, nu uh, nu uh" in response to everything. What is your argument because I'm not seeing more than "nu uh."


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 9, 2009)

And again.




NoDrama said:


> i found this post that really explains why jet fuel cannot be the cause of the steel failing.
> 
> "LRRP 1968 Says:
> July 16th, 2009 at 5:56 am the World Trade Center buildings collapsed as a result of fires ignited by jet fuel.
> ...


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 9, 2009)

I looked at the link. The author is just another conspiracy nut quoting other conspiracy nuts. Here is an excerpt from that long pile of rubbish in which the author reveals his bias. Do you have anything authored by any major university engineering departments or any bona-fide sources?

_The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and __Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice__ finally obtained the WTC blueprints from an anonymous individual.__[20]_
_Although the WTC was over-designed to withstand almost anything including *hurricanes*, *high winds,* *bombings* and an *airplane* *hitting* it, __[21]__ the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition._

It is true that the WTC could withstand the impact of the jet. It may also be true that the steel could hold up the building at 50% strength. What happened in the WTC incident is that the fire heated the buildings support beams unevenly. This caused them to warp and it was the combination of the three that brought down the towers.

But really, you guys need to take a more careful look at your "evidence." You just posted a steaming loaf of shit written by a blogger with no credentials who is quoting other conspiracy nuts and offering a lot of conjecture. Show me a bona-fide engineering journal like the one I posted that backs this up. 

Look at what we presented, numerous writings from bona-fide sources like Popular Mechanics, MIT and others. You guys post crap written by nobodies. Steven Jones in fact has no expertise in this field and yet your guy is quoting him. 

See you are just proving what CrackerJax is saying. You cherry pick anything that seems to support our delusions while ignoring everything that doesn't. In doing so you take the word of any Tom, Dick or Harry without even questioning who they are.

I have to wonder though, if this is all a big conspiracy why do you think most people think you are nuts? Do you think we are all part of the conspiracy? Do you realize we have no dog in the fight? Why do you think people with science backgrounds would be on here arguing with you? If your theory is correct, don't you think we would see our logic eventually? But instead we see you as more and more delusional - why is that?

Here is a highly technical article published in a real engineering journal. Notice the language isn't even similar to the layman's language in the article you posted.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 9, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> If you are going to keep chopping up every post into single sentences you might want to at least respond to them with something meaningful. None of your responses even make sense.


It does make sense. You merely make a statement it doesn't to side step the issue ... typical disinformationalist tactic.



RickWhite said:


> You need a source to show that the WTC was constructed differently than most buildings, are you joking?


No ... I want a source that shows the WTC towers were constructed differently than other steel frame fireproofed skyscrapers.



RickWhite said:


> This is common knowledge; even people on your side fully acknowledge this so why do you need a source? Here - 10 seconds on Google.
> 
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html


 You provide a link to an OPINION and expect us to accept it as facts ... while you continue to disregard undeniable scientific facts, that NO posted twice ... and you think yourself credible? 



RickWhite said:


> Also, I did look for a response to the overpass issue. I looked on several pages and didn't find one.


Well the information is there ... if you are too lazy to look it up it's not my problem ... the folks that have been following this thread can verify.



RickWhite said:


> Bottom line, nothing in your post even comes close to a rebuttal of anything I said.


merely your opinion ...nothing more. The fact remains people are going to continue to push for a real investigation. Too bad you can't accept that.



RickWhite said:


> What you posted is the equivalent of a child saying "nu uh, nu uh, nu uh" in response to everything. What is your argument because I'm not seeing more than "nu uh."


No ... I'm posting facts ... you are in denial so you pretend I haven't address the issue.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 9, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> It does make sense. You merely make a statement it doesn't to side step the issue ... typical disinformationalist tactic.
> 
> 
> No ... I want a source that shows the WTC towers were constructed differently than other steel frame fireproofed skyscrapers.
> ...


You are too stupid for words. I posted a link to a real engineering journal. The link NoDrama posted was taken from a conspiracy website.

Are you really to stupid to know the difference?

To be honest, your responses are so childish and stupid I have to ask that you not address me anymore. I refuse to waste my time on you. Now if you will excuse me, me and the other "disinformationalists" have a meeting. We will be discussing how to spend the money we get from the Government for spreading disinformation.

What a dumb ass.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 9, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> It does make sense. You merely make a statement it doesn't to side step the issue ... typical disinformationalist tactic.
> 
> 
> No ... I want a source that shows the WTC towers were constructed differently than other steel frame fireproofed skyscrapers.
> ...


Jesus you are an irritating person. Do you know how childish your little game of responding to every sentence with a snide remark makes you look. Obviously not because you are a retard. I'm putting you on ignore now.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 9, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You are too stupid for words. I posted a link to a real engineering journal. The link NoDrama posted was taken from a conspiracy website.
> 
> Are you really to stupid to know the difference?
> 
> ...


LOL its Growrebel's thread. 


"Are you really too stupid to know the difference"?....I corrected the grammar for you. Don't want you to look stupid or anything.


Is popular mechanics really a reliable source? Isn't that the magazine that keeps saying were gonna be flying in spaceships any day now, and everyone will ride an electric hover craft and that teleportation is actually possible. Also "Alien" technology articles???


----------



## hom36rown (Oct 10, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> I'm not in favor of more government control.
> 
> You must have me confused with someone else.
> 
> I do believe we were lied to (or at least "misled") as to who was behind the attacks on 9/11. I'm not convinced the government was behind it (though I wouldn't put it past George W.), but I don't think it was Al-Qaeda, either.


Arent you the one always ranting about socialism? Oh that puts the people in charge huh(yeah right) You support universal healthcare...I'd say that equates to more government power.

And what leads you to believe it wasn't al quaeda, we identified the high-jackers and they even admitted to it. 

And you don't think it was the government, but you think they are lying to us about al-quaeda...soooo you think another terrorist group did it and the gov't framed al quaeda...for what reason exactly? Or...what exactly. Why would the gov't lie about who perpetrated it, unless they thmeselves were involved?

From your last couple posts I take it you believe the buildings were blown up...so then, you think some really crafty terrorists did this?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 10, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> And what leads you to believe it wasn't al quaeda, we identified the high-jackers and they even admitted to it.


think about what you just said  


they must have been just as "invincible" as their ID's ....


wb


----------



## We Love 1 (Oct 10, 2009)

Check out this video and tell me its not a big conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+money+masters&emb=0&aq=f#

If that link doesnt work than just search for "the money masters" at googlevideo.com. 

Jesus loves you.


----------



## The Warlord (Oct 10, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I always laugh when people say " Jet Fuel" As if saying it makes it a somehow volatile substance. Most people don't realize that Jet Fuel ( Or Jet-A) is actually in essence very dirty diesel fuel, it does not have a high octane rating , it has alot of waxes floating in it, sometimes they will add oxidizers to the fuel to increase high altittude operations. You could throw lit matches into a pool of jet fuel and most likely they would just extinguish themselves akin to throwing a match into a pool of water.The Octane rating of Jet fuel is somewhere in the area of 15 to 25. Gasoline(Mogas) is rated at 87-93 and Aviation fuel(aka AVGAS Which most people think is jet fuel) which can have an extremely volatile octane rating of 115-145.
> 
> Jet Fuel..not that big a deal.


Actually jet fuel is closer to kerosene than it is to diesel. It's more flamable than diesel.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 10, 2009)

oh yeah your hijackers....


9 of them are still alive


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 10, 2009)

We Love 1 said:


> Check out this video and tell me its not a big conspiracy.
> 
> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+money+masters&emb=0&aq=f#
> 
> ...


Well now this thread is complete. I knew someone would eventually boil it down to a Jewish world conspiracy. I just wonder what took so long.

You do realize that Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew don't you?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 10, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Well now this thread is complete. I knew someone would eventually boil it down to a Jewish world conspiracy. I just wonder what took so long.
> 
> You do realize that Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew don't you?


uhhh ,and Jesus THE JEW, only meant his words for other JEWS, no one else. Even Jesus considered gentiles to be UNCLEAN.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 10, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> think about what you just said
> 
> 
> they must have been just as "invincible" as their ID's ....
> ...



Again, a GLARING problem... you need to work on your reading comprehension. You too Keenly.

Read it again and see how it sounds when you link the back to the front. Uhhhh..... I just found half of ur problems in life.... you don't process the same thing ppl are telling you.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 10, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You are too stupid for words. I posted a link to a real engineering journal.


Just another one of your fantasies ... I saw nothing to indicate it was a credible "engineering journal" Prove it.



RickWhite said:


> The link NoDrama posted was taken from a conspiracy website.


You have no proof what so ever of that.



RickWhite said:


> Are you really to stupid to know the difference?


You seem to be the stupid one in that regard.



RickWhite said:


> To be honest, your responses are so childish and stupid I have to ask that you not address me anymore.


Bwaa ha ha ha ... now that is too funny!



RickWhite said:


> I refuse to waste my time on you. Now if you will excuse me, me and the other "disinformationalists" have a meeting.


Of that ... I have no doubt.



RickWhite said:


> We will be discussing how to spend the money we get from the Government for spreading disinformation.
> What a dumb ass.


I have a feeling you are too stupid to get paid ... you do this shit for free ... one of the suckers. Dumb ass is as dumb ass does.kiss-ass



RickWhite said:


> Jesus you are an irritating person.


I don't see anyone twisting your arm to read my post ... how stupid is that?



RickWhite said:


> Do you know how childish your little game of responding to every sentence with a snide remark makes you look.


Oh like I give a shit of you opinion. Bwaa ha ha ha.



RickWhite said:


> Obviously not because you are a retard. I'm putting you on ignore now.


I can easily say the same thing about you ... don't go away mad ... just go away. Ha ha ha. It must be frustrating for you disinformation agent when people insist on finding the truth with a real investigation. Too bad ... so sad. Here ...  ... it will calm you down.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

Wow Jax,
Before you retired did you deal with a lot of crazy people? Did you miss it that badly?

Between the Fundies and the 911 Truthers, where do you find time to relax?

Are you fighting in a Birther thread too?


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 10, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> And what leads you to believe it wasn't al quaeda, we identified the high-jackers and they even admitted to it.


Ah ... because the government hasn't provided any proof to back their conspiracy theory ... we are expected to take them at their lying word ... not. And the ones that "admitted" to it were tortured ... nuff said. 



hom36rown said:


> And you don't think it was the government, but you think they are lying to us about al-quaeda...soooo you think another terrorist group did it and the gov't framed al quaeda...for what reason exactly?


The elite in government made up "Al-Qaeda" in order to have a perpetual war with perpetual profits for them ... that's why.




hom36rown said:


> From your last couple posts I take it you believe the buildings were blown up...so then, you think some really crafty terrorists did this?


Yeah ... the elite. The military industrial complex ... oil companies ... the elite.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

Has anyone addressed the spies that both China and Russia have throughout the US government infrastructure, and here in Canada as well?

You would think that either country would have obtained documents or proof of conspiracy that would have allowed them to capitalize ruthlessly on the issue.

Or is that used to explain why a good chunk of US equity belongs to China at the moment?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 10, 2009)

Does anyone here even see a point to responding to GrowRebel? He must be a kid because all his posts sound like stuff I remember from the playground:

Nu uh, nu uh, nu uh, nu uh. No you shut up, no you shut up. I know you are but what am I? I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

I honestly know 10 year olds that are brighter than GrowRebel. I post a link to a legitimate engineering journal and he asks me to prove that that is what it is.

Here is a link to the journal, I'll let you decide. Is this legitimate or bogus?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/jomhome.asp

Here is a synopsis:

Published monthly by The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS), _JOM_ is a technical journal devoted to exploring the many aspects of materials science and engineering.
_JOM_ reports scholarly work that explores the state-of-the-art processing, fabrication, design, and application of metals, ceramics, plastics, composites, and other materials. In pursuing this goal, _JOM_ strives to balance the interests of the laboratory and the marketplace by reporting academic, industrial, and government-sponsored work from around the world.
*What does JOM contain?*
The editorial scope includes archival-quality technical papers, general overviews, economic outlooks, developments in engineering education, articles on professional concerns, archaeotechnology papers, research and business updates, meetings announcements, interviews, opinion pieces, conference and literature reviews, software coverage, and news about TMS. Each issue thoroughly explores at least two technical topics by presenting three to six articles on each subject. In this way, _JOM_ provides well-rounded coverage of an array of materials-related subjects, from minerals characterization and developments in extraction to the production of advanced electronic materials and the performance of tomorrow's aerospace structural components.

Gee, this sure sounds like a bunch of real egg heads to me.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOM

5 seconds on Google might have helped him out.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 10, 2009)

Google is a conspiracy.....


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Google is a conspiracy.....


I'm for any conspiracy that helps me find both educational reading material and decent porn.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 10, 2009)

Hmmm.... the playboy conspiracy it is then. I hear they airbrush the covers with nano thermite.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 10, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Gee, this sure sounds like a bunch of real egg heads to me.


A bunch of egg head who are wrong like NIST and the 911 commission ... not to mention you failed to proved the information No posted was a conspiracy site. ... gee ... some people just can't handle the fact that lots of people are pushing for a real investigation and will continue to do so until all unanswered questions have been answered. Must be hard. Too bad ... so sad.


----------



## NorthwestBuds (Oct 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> A bunch of egg head who are wrong like NIST and the 911 commission ... not to mention you failed to proved the information No posted was a conspiracy site. ... gee ... some people just can't handle the fact that lots of people are pushing for a real investigation and will continue to do so until all unanswered questions have been answered. Must be hard. Too bad ... so sad.


Nothing will ever come from anything you say here...you are wasting your time with this obsession.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

Your print is larger than his. 
You must be right.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 10, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Arent you the one always ranting about socialism? Oh that puts the people in charge huh(yeah right) You support universal healthcare...I'd say that equates to more government power.
> 
> And what leads you to believe it wasn't al quaeda, we identified the high-jackers and they even admitted to it.
> 
> ...


If by "ranting about socialism" you mean showing my disgust that so many Americans (who consider themselves so "smart") have NO idea what socialism is, then yes, that's me.

Yes, socialism can put power in the hands of the people. Yet another display of your ignorance about socialism. I'd implore you to speak to someone who considers themselves "socialist" and ask them what socialism is and how it relates to democracy. Of course, you'd have to set aside your irrational fear of socialism first.

Universal health care equates to more government power? How so? I'm in favor of a single payer system. The only power the government would have is the power to pay the medical bills. I'm guessing you don't really know what a single payer system is, do you? 

We caught the hijackers and they CONFESSED? Wow.. how did they survive the plane crash? 

I think they lied about Al-Qaeda so they could lead us into an endless war to profit THEMSELVES at the expense of the entire nation.

If you want to establish motive, just look at who had the most to gain from these buildings falling. No, I don't think it was "terrorists" at all (not the kind you're referring to, aka muslims). I think the government may have had a hand in it, but I don't think GWB is smart enough to come up with this all on his own.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

Police departments: Socialist
Fire departments: Socialist
Public Works: Socialist
Miltary: Socialist

Down with all of them!


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 10, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Wow Jax,
> Before you retired did you deal with a lot of crazy people? Did you miss it that badly?
> 
> Between the Fundies and the 911 Truthers, where do you find time to relax?
> ...


Actually, Jax IS a birther.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 10, 2009)

cracker

i posted 9 of the 19 hijackers were alive and well, which they are

then you told me i need to learn to read?

if i couldnt read, i couldnt type either, so ................ yeah confused




rick, honestly, instead of calling people names and attacking them, which makes your credibility go down the toilet faster then chipotle......why not come back with evidence to support your claims



like i said, 9 of the 19 hijackers are still alive


2 of the 4 planes supposedly destroyed on 9/11 are still marked as "valid" aircraft while the other 2 are marked "destroyed". from UA's own documents


president bush's brother, at the time of 9/11, was the head of a kuwait / american security company


this company managed security for BOTH the WTC complex AND united airlines


i guess 9/11 was a day of historical firsts, events that defy physics, as well as the single most co-incidents to ever happen in a single day


----------



## Keenly (Oct 10, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Actually, Jax IS a birther.




mmmm birthers




personally, i wouldnt throw myself into this category



but my mind just cant help but as, why cant 1 single legit document be shown to the public


it would shut everyone up real quick


its the same for the pentagon plane crash (there was no plane)




if the government wants us to believe a plane crashed into the pentagon, all they would have to do is release 1 of the at least 10 CCTV videos that would have caught the plane on tape



the surrounding business tapes were immediately confiscated by the FBI, to this day they have not been released


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 10, 2009)

Keenly said:


> mmmm birthers
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There has been a single, legit document shown. OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Just because it isn't the mythical "long form" certificate that the birthers insist is the ONLY TRUE birth certificate (despite the fact that NO state issues these "long form" certificates anymore) doesn't mean it isn't legit.

My birth certificate looks like something I could print up off my own computer, and so do my kids'. Does that make them fake? Nope, just makes the state a bunch of cheapskates.


"socialist" for republicans is like "smurfy" to the smurfs. An adjective they can apply indiscriminately to anything. Nevermind that they couldn't tell the difference between socialism and botulism.

"Gee, Papa Smurf, isn't this Smurf Library smurfy?"

"Gee, Glenn Beck, that Obamacare sure is socialist."

What's funny is that the "socialist" in Congress, Bernie Sanders, voted AGAINST the wall street bailouts! That's right! The socialist voted against the "socialist" takeover of banks by the government. Gee, whiz... kinda makes you wonder if maybe those bailouts weren't so "socialist" after all!

The Democratic Socialists of America say Obama is NOT one of them!

Yet the insanity continues.


----------



## hom36rown (Oct 11, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> If by "ranting about socialism" you mean showing my disgust that so many Americans (who consider themselves so "smart") have NO idea what socialism is, then yes, that's me.
> 
> Yes, socialism can put power in the hands of the people. Yet another display of your ignorance about socialism. I'd implore you to speak to someone who considers themselves "socialist" and ask them what socialism is and how it relates to democracy. Of course, you'd have to set aside your irrational fear of socialism first.
> 
> ...


Al quaeda confessed, not the high jackers... remember that bin laden guy. So if al quaeda didn't do it, who did it? And what leads you to believe this? ANd do you, or do you not think the buildings were blown up?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 11, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Al quaeda confessed, not the high jackers... remember that bin laden guy. So if al quaeda didn't do it, who did it? And what leads you to believe this? ANd do you, or do you not think the buildings were blown up?


i think i got this one doob........ 
i think i remember the bin laden guy, he was the one americans blamed for 911 , the same guy who we cant find still? the same guy who IS NOT on the FBI wanted list for 911, (there are others on the fbi 911 wanted list , just not him?)
well IF al quaeda did not do this *with help from U.S. *then that only leaves the government / elite ? If we were to ever get a REAL investigation , maybe ALL of us will find out *who.......*
(yes i am admitting that i dont know *who* done this)
why do I believe all this...... well because it is *VERY *obvious that the government has somthing to hide and i would like to find out what. (if u need more reasons just ask)
and for the final question , (this is just a guess on what doob thinks....) Yes they were "blown up" .... well i dont think nano thermite "blows up" but it will cut right through steel ..... - the explosion. Now that is a just a highly educated opinion 
What i do know is a FACT is them buildings were not brought down by fires or planes. again a *real investigation will prove somebody wrong.* If we are just makin shit up or just being theorist , then why would it be so hard to just release some more info and shut us all up??


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> i think i got this one doob........
> i think i remember the bin laden guy, he was the one americans blamed for 911 , the same guy who we cant find still? the same guy who IS NOT on the FBI wanted list for 911, (there are others on the fbi 911 wanted list , just not him?)
> well IF al quaeda did not do this *with help from U.S. *then that only leaves the government / elite ? If we were to ever get a REAL investigation , maybe ALL of us will find out *who.......*
> (yes i am admitting that i dont know *who* done this)
> ...



Wow, that response if chock full of IF, I Think, and maybes...

Here's a core problem, and shows the POLITICAL agenda behind the "truthers":

You said: *well IF al quaeda did not do this with help from U.S. then that only leaves the government / elite ? If we were to ever get a REAL investigation , maybe ALL of us will find out **who.......

*You left out the most OBVIOUS scenario..... which you don't want to even consider because of politics, which is a real indication you have no interest in science or the truth. You just want to slam a sq1uare peg in a round hole.

The most *LIKELY* scenario is the *Al Queda* pulled off a terrific terrorist plot which was the culmination of 8 years of a failed Clinton Foreign policy.

That is the ACCEPTED reason for 9/11.

But you CAN'T accept it. You can't even consider it, which makes you all look silly and one sided....which of course....you all are!!

Why use logic when you have youtube!!!


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 11, 2009)

Keenly said:


> but my mind just cant help but as, why cant 1 single legit document be shown to the public
> 
> 
> it would shut everyone up real quick
> ...


They finally released ONE tape of the pentagon plane but it was chopped up by a computer (frames missin) So yea 1 WHOLE video might just shut us all up , 
So WHY? why is it so hard to put out this info , what are you greedy fucks hidin? 
Its THAT simple ..... just put out some info that is impossible to argue and thousands of folks would just shut up and quit askin for a new investigation.

heres one scenario : Al quada paid security to turn there heads while they did their job. 
Now that would shut me up because i have no *proof *beyond that point. 
But as of now , I have plenty of proof saying the official report is Totally fucked. 



wb


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Wow, that response if chock full of IF, I Think, and maybes...
> 
> Here's a core problem, and shows the POLITICAL agenda behind the "truthers":


The only "problem" is you trying to stop people from pushing for a real investigation. You can call all the names you want and post all the disinformation you like ... it won't change a thing. People are going to continue to push for a real investigation. Too bad ... so sad that you can't handle that.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Wow, that response if chock full of IF, I Think, and maybes...


well maybe i can admit , that i do not know the whole reason this was done. Is it THAT hard for you to do the same? And You have showed NOTHING proving me or anyone else wrong.



CrackerJax said:


> Here's a core problem, and shows the POLITICAL agenda behind the "truthers":


as you guys should all know by now, i am not the best "talker" on this thread , and you should also know that i barely know what a political agenda is, so how could i possibly have an agenda? You got me all fucked up with somebody else.... The one and ONLY thing I have to gain off this 911 shit is: If we can get the truth out quick enough then the schools cannot force MY kids to believe such bullshit. Plus i would love to see justice served on the right folks for once. THATS MY POLITICAL AGENDA ....understand or do you want to go on? 
when you or your daddy can prove anything on this thread to be untrue then i'll listen to your shit. until then your personal agenda is way worse then my political agenda....................


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 11, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> well maybe i can admit , that i do not know the whole reason this was done. Is it THAT hard for you to do the same? And You have showed NOTHING proving me or anyone else wrong.


Why do you keep lying? You know damn well we have shown you a great deal of proof. And just so you know, the burden of proof is on you.

But regardless, when you call for an investigation, do you mean one like this?

​*Engineering Groups Gather Evidence, Provide Support in Clean-up*


In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., engineering groups rallied to conduct a variety of studies, ensuring the safety of search and rescue workers and gathering evidence before it was land-filled or recycled. When the analyses are complete, the professionals hope to understand, in detail, why the buildings failed, particularly the World Trade Center towers.

For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed teams to work with local officials in New York and Washington to collect and evaluate data from the scenes. The work will be distilled into a report for ASCE membership and other interested parties. That report is expected to be completed in the spring of 2002.

To help ASCE collect data, the Structural Engineers Association of New York issued a call for volunteers to work at the two scrap yards in New Jersey receiving steel from the World Trade Center.

The teams of engineers were posted at each salvage yard, watching for potential evidence. In particular, the engineers looked for steel from the floors where the airplanes hit and where the fires broke out. Close examination of the debris could provide that information. When the twin towers were built, each piece of steel was stamped with its location in the buildings. No details have been released about the teams' findings.

The New York engineers association also is collecting information about the buildings, including photographs before, during, and after their destruction, observations of specific structural or fire damage, or any other technical information. In addition, the group is asking for similar information about buildings still standing adjacent to the World Trade Center site.

Volunteers from the organization continue to assist at "ground zero" by assessing the structural stability of the debris and shoring safe routes for equipment. The group helped to assess damage to some 400 area buildings, to determine the extent of peripheral damage caused by the tower collapse.

The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) also was represented among the professionals evaluating the evidence of the World Trade Center collapse. The group, consisting of a core team of six people and another ten advisers, arrived at the disaster site in early October, said Scott Melnick, vice president of communications for AISC. The groups investigation was expected to last for several months, with a final report anticipated within nine months to a year.

They are evaluating not just the physical rubble, but doing computational analyses to create a model of the collapse, Melnick said.

The AISC is a non-profit association representing the United States structural steel industry. The organization develops and maintains standards for design and construction of steel buildings in the United States.

The final report from the WTC investigation will be turned over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates U.S. disaster relief efforts. ​_Copyright held by The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 2001_


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 11, 2009)

It's the blueprints for the north tower ... more proof of it's design to withstand what happen.'
Table of World Trade CenterTower A Architectural Drawings






And I don't think I've posted anything about corporate news announcing the collapse of tower 7 before it happen ...

Building 7 of the World Trade Centre was brought down via a controlled demolition, planned months in advance of 11th September 2001. A script, prepared beforehand for the Zionist-controlled BBC, was read on television by a "reporter." Not much of a "reporter," though, because if she had just opened her eyes she would have noticed that the building she was telling millions of people had "collapsed" was still there. And it remained there for a further 26 minutes!





New NEWS - BBC Video - WTC 7 - Prior Knowledge
[youtube]PNK1V6S2cbo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 11, 2009)

Or do you mean one like this?

_On August 21, 2002, on the direction of the U.S. Congress, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated an investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. In support of the overall investigation goals, the NIST Metallurgy and Materials Reliability Divisions pursued three objectives: assess the quality of the steel used in the construction of the towers, determine mechanical properties of the steel for input to the finite element models of the building collapse, and assess the failure mechanisms of the recovered steel components. This article describes the major findings of the metallurgical part of the NIST WTC investigation and shows how the findings were integrated into the investigation._

*INTRODUCTION* 
*MODELING AND UNDERSTANDING THE COLLAPSE* The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory and its contractors created a complex model to understand the collapse of the towers. Three semi-independent parts comprised the model: a model of the aircraft impact and initial damage, a model of the dynamic spread of resulting fires and the thermal environment they produced, and a structural model of the resulting deformation and eventual collapse of the towers. The output of the impact and fire models fed into the structural collapse model.

The aircraft impact model enabled investigators to determine the damage to the interior of the building, which was not visible to witnesses outside, and to determine the dispersion of jet fuel. This model included about nine floors of each building and a highly detailed model of the aircraft and its fuel. It used about two million elements, employed time steps of about 1 microsecond, and modeled a fraction of the first second of the disaster. The output of the model was the structural state of the building after the impact, but before the fires began. It included estimates of the path and distribution of the debris and fuel, the areas where the spray-applied fire-resistive material was stripped from the columns and floor trusses, and estimates of the number and location of severed or damaged core columns. The aircraft impact model used material models of the deformation behavior of the structural steels, both at quasi-static and at high strain rate.

The fire model employed the NIST Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), a computational fluid dynamics model that numerically solves a form of the Navier&#8211;Stokes equations to model thermally driven flow. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has used FDS for forensic reconstruction of fires before the WTC investigation. The building model of the fires, which used actual tenant floor layout information, contained eight relevant floors around the impact site. Each floor was divided into a computational grid of cells approximately 0.5 m on a side. The output of the fire model was the complete thermal history of each floor, which was then used to predict the temperatures of the beams and columns.

The structural models of the two towers were used to understand the collapse hypotheses. The global model examined a base case as well as a severe damage and fire case for each tower, and took as input the state of the damaged buildings predicted by the impact model and the thermal history of the floors predicted by the fire model. The global structural model, which necessarily employed simplifying assumptions because of its computational size, was based on more detailed component models that analyzed the response of individual components, such as the floor trusses, their connections at the seats, and the shear knuckles that provided shear transfer between the concrete floor and the truss assemblies. The behavior of the exterior wall column panels was also modeled in greater detail. The results of the more detailed component models indicated which failure and deformation modes could be neglected in the global model. The structural models employed steel material models of the room and elevated-temperature stress-strain behavior, and the elevated-temperature creep behavior.*THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWERS* Seven steel companies supplied structural steel to the World Trade Center (WTC) construction. Above the seventh floor, the structure of the towers comprised four main subsystems; a different steel fabricator supplied each. Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles, California, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up the core. Laclede Steel of St. Louis, Missouri, fabricated the thousands of floor trusses that spanned the opening between the core and the perimeter tube. Finally, Montague-Betts of Lynchburg, Virginia, fabricated all the beams above the ninth floor.

*Exterior Wall Columns*
The closely spaced exterior columns formed a stiff tube that resisted all the wind loads and a portion of the gravity load. The individual columns were roughly 14 in. square, and were fabricated by welding individual plates into box columns. Three adjacent columns, each three stories high, were joined by deep, horizontal spandrel plates at every floor to form a panel. Figure A shows a three-story tall, three-column wide exterior wall panel being lifted into place, and identifies the major structural components in the exterior wall.
Once in place, the panels were bolted on the end butt plates and at splice plates that connected adjacent spandrels. Nearly every panel assembly was unique, and each was intended for a specific location on a given face of one building. In the lower floors, the individual plates that made up the perimeter columns were up to 1 in. thick, but those in the fire and impact floors of interest were typically 0.25 in. thick. Yawata Iron and Steel (now Nippon Steel) supplied most of the steel for the perimeter columns. The design of the towers was also unusual in that the original plans called for 14 different strength grades of steel, as low as 36 ksi and as high as 100 ksi. Ordinary building construction might only use two or three strength grades. Each column in a three-column, exterior wall column panel could be fabricated from a different grade of steel as could the three spandrels. Because the wind loads differed between the different compass directions, the distribution of column strengths and thicknesses on each face of each building was unique; the two towers were not identical copies. In the floors of interest for the collapse model for WTC 1, the perimeter column plates were typically FY = 60 ksi.

*Core Columns*
The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes. In general, the box columns carried the load in the lower stories, while the rolled shapes were used in the upper floors, but each type existed in the fire and impact zones. Most of the steel was specified as FY = 36 ksi. The plates for the box columns came from Japanese mills and were fabricated on the west coast and shipped to New York. Japanese and British steel mills supplied most of the wide-flange columns and beams used above the seventh floor, which were detailed by a fabricator on the east coast.

*Floor Trusses*
Lightweight floor trusses supported the concrete floors that spanned the open space between the conventionally framed core and the exterior wall columns. The chords of the floor trusses were fabricated from 0.25 in. or 0.375 in. L-angles, while their webs were typically made from a single length of 0.75 in. round bar. Laclede Steel rolled the shapes from steel made in its own electric-arc furnace. It also welded the individual truss sections, and then shipped them by rail to New Jersey, where the erection company assembled them into floor panels that were lifted by crane into place. Figure A also shows a completed floor panel before the concrete floor was poured. The trusses were bolted and welded to seats on the spandrels of the exterior wall column panels. The truss seats on the opposite end at the core, not visible in Figure A, were similar. The webs projected above the level of the truss top chord and formed a knuckle to provide a composite action that tied the concrete floor to the floor trusses.*THE FAILURE OF THE TOWERS* At 8:46:30 the first airplane struck the north wall of World Trade Center (WTC) 1 between floors 93 and 98. About 15% of the jet fuel burned in the fireball outside the building. Another 15% burned inside the building immediately. The rest fueled the fires that started. The overpressure from the fireball blew out many of the windows, which subsequently provided oxygen for fires. The impact damaged or severed 38 of 59 exterior columns on the north wall, and, based on the aircraft impact analysis, 9 of the 47 core columns. The passage of the impact debris through the tower stripped the insulation from columns and floor trusses on the impact floors. Over the next 102 min., the fires moved from the north (impact) side to the south side. Eighty minutes after impact, the south wall began to bow inward. At 97 min., it reached its maximum observed displacement of 1.4 m. Just before collapse, the building section above the impact zone tilted to the south, and at 10:28:25, 102 min. after impact, WTC 1 began to collapse.
The second airplane struck the south wall of WTC 2 at 9:02:59 between floors 78 and 84. The effects of the fireball were similar to those in WTC 1. The impact damaged 32 of 59 exterior wall columns, and based on the aircraft impact analysis, 11 of 47 core columns. As in WTC 1, the passage of the impact debris stripped insulation from columns and fl oor trusses. Unlike WTC 1, the fire moved quickly to the east side of the building, but then remained there. Within ten minutes of impact, the east wall began to bow inward. Just before collapse, the building section above the impact zone tilted to the east and south, and at 9:58:59, 56 minutes after impact, WTC 2 began to collapse.

*The Most Probable Collapse Sequence*
The investigation team integrated the photographic record, the eyewitness accounts, the experimental results, and the results of the aircraft impact analysis, fire spread and growth analysis, heat conduction analysis, and structural response analysis to determine the probable collapse sequence for each tower. Report NIST NCSTAR 1-6, from which this summary is abstracted, summarizes the observations, results, and findings in much greater detail.
The sequences of events leading to collapse initiation were similar, but not identical, for each tower. Four major structural events were common to both sequences. First, the floors that lost insulation due to debris impact sagged as the truss members deformed and buckled under elevated steel temperature. The sagging floors pulled inward at the column connections and caused the exterior wall to bow inward. Next, the exterior wall bowed and plastically buckled under the combined effects of the reduced strength at elevated temperatures, increased axial loads redistributed from the severed columns, pull-in forces from sagging floors, and loss of lateral support due to failure of truss seat connections. Then, the core columns weakened under the combined effects of structural impact damage, reduced elevated temperature strength, and plastic buckling of core columns. In addition, the loads on the remaining core columns increased as gravity loads redistributed from the damaged core columns. Finally, the gravity loads redistributed because of the impact damage, restrained thermal expansion, weakening of the core, leaning of the section above the impact damage, and bowing and buckling of exterior walls. The hat truss primarily redistributed the gravity loads from the core to the exterior walls, but the adjacent exterior walls redistributed load primarily through the spandrels. All three major subsystems&#8212;the building core, the building floors, and the exterior walls&#8212;played a role in the structural collapse sequence for WTC 1 and WTC 2.
_Role of the Building Core_
The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact. The core columns were weakened significantly by thermal effects and by the aircraft impact damage. Thermal effects dominated the weakening of WTC 1. As the fires moved from the north to the south side of the core, the WTC 1 core was weakened over time by significant creep strains on its south side. Aircraft impact damage dominated the weakening of WTC 2. Immediately after impact, the vertical displacement at the southeast corner of the WTC 2 core increased 15 cm, from 10 cm to 25 cm. With the impact damage, the core subsystem leaned to the southeast and was supported by the south and east floors and exterior walls. Gravity loads redistributed from the core to the exterior faces primarily through the hat truss due to aircraft impact and thermal effects. The WTC 1 core carried 1% less load after impact but 20% less after thermal weakening. The WTC 2 core carried 6% less load after impact and 2% less load after thermal weakening. Additional axial loads that were redistributed to the exterior columns from the core were not significant (only about 20% to 25% on average), because the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.
_Role of the Building Floors_
The floors were designed to support occupancy loads and transfer them to the core and exterior columns. They were also designed to act as horizontal diaphragms when the buildings were subject to high winds.
In the collapse of the towers, the floors provided inward pull forces as they sagged signifi cantly under thermal loads. However, the sagging floors continued to support their floor loads despite the dislodged insulation and extensive fires. Some truss seat connections with dislodged insulation at the exterior columns did fail and disconnect from the exterior wall under thermal loads. Floor disconnections increased the unsupported length of the exterior columns and distributed floor loads to adjacent truss seats. No inward pull forces existed where the floors were disconnected.
_Role of Exterior Walls_
Column instability over an extended region of the exterior face ultimately triggered the global system collapse, because the loads could not be redistributed through the hat truss to the already weakened building core. In the area of exterior column buckling, loads transferred through the spandrels to adjacent columns and adjacent exterior walls. As the exterior wall buckled, on the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, column instability propagated to adjacent faces and caused the initiation of the building collapse.
The exterior wall instability was induced by a combination of thermal weakening of the columns, inward pull forces from sagging floors, and to a much lesser degree, additional axial loads redistributed from the core.

*Conclusions of the Analysis*
Floor sagging and inward bowing of an exterior wall were necessary but not sufficient conditions to initiate collapse. In both WTC 1 and WTC 2, significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary. The National Institute of Standards and Technology considered the observed performance, evidence, and analysis results for each tower, and reached two conclusions. First, in the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001 likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower. Second, the towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires encountered on September 11, 2001 if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
The existing thermal insulation, had it not been stripped off in the impact, would have been sufficient to keep the steel temperatures low enough to minimize deformation. Also, the investigation team neither found nor invoked any extraordinary events, beyond the terrorist attack that damaged the structure and removed the insulation, that led to the collapse of the towers.
The difference in the time it took for each WTC tower to collapse was due primarily to the differences in structural damage, the time it took the fires to travel from the impact area across the floors and core to critical locations, and the time it took to weaken the core and exterior columns. The structural damage to the WTC 2 core was asymmetric, including a corner core column that was severed. The damage to WTC 1 was more symmetrical; it was located in the center portion of the core and extended from the north side to the south side. The fires in WTC 2 reached the east side of the building more quickly (within 10 to 20 minutes) than the 50 to 60 minutes it took for the fires in WTC 1 to reach the south side.
Within three weeks of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) established a Building Performance Assessment Team, composed mainly of volunteers, to investigate the structural engineering and fire aspects of the collapse. This team completed and issued its report in May 2002. Congress directed the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to conduct a more in-depth analysis and on August 21, 2002, NIST initiated its investigation.

*The full text of the INVESTIGATION with images can be viewed here:*

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 11, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Building 7 of the World Trade Centre was brought down via a controlled demolition, planned months in advance of 11th September 2001. *A script, prepared beforehand for the Zionist-controlled BBC, was read on television by a "reporter." *Not much of a "reporter," though, because if she had just opened her eyes she would have noticed that the building she was telling millions of people had "collapsed"was still there. And it remained there for a further26 minutes!
> 
> New NEWS - BBC Video - WTC 7 - Prior Knowledge


 
And there we have it - the Jews did it. Do you believe the Jews were behind 911 or do you just get your "evidence" from anti-Semetic websites?

By the way, the BBC is famous for their anti-Semetic, anti-Israel views. So much for the credibility of what you consider "evidence."

Try again Dipshiticus.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 11, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> And there we have it - the Jews did it. Do you believe the Jews were behind 911 or do you just get your "evidence" from anti-Semetic websites?
> 
> By the way, the BBC is famous for their anti-Semetic, anti-Israel views. So much for the credibility of what you consider "evidence."
> 
> Try again Dipshiticus.


I wouldn't say "jews" in general ... but the elite who happen to be jewish ... yes ... and what part of "we are going to continue to push for a real investigation" don't you understand? The burden of proof isn't on us ... it's on the government dumbass. You can post the shit that has been debunked as quickly as it flows out your ass it won't change a thing. People want a real investigation and will not stop until they get one. Too bad ... so sad that you can't handle that.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 11, 2009)

Attention ... this is for today only ... hopefully those that are interested will see this before the event ...

Join us on *October 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM Eastern* for a historic Webcast. If youre in the Greater Boston area, see and meet Richard Gage live (click here for details).

http://richardgageboston.org/Watch Richard Gage Live at the Historic First Parish Church in Harvard Sq.
Richard Gage is having a live webcast today at First Parish in Cambridge, a 400 year old church in front of Harvard which has had the presence of George Washington.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 11, 2009)

More proof we will continue to push for a real investigation, no matter how long it takes. Disinformation agents can post all the bullshit they like ... it won't make any difference ... people want a real investigation and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that.

What Happened in New York on 9 11 2009 This Year? I Don't Think You Knew About This, Did You?
[youtube]UOfpaiyl0ZU[/youtube]
Wow I didn't know Bruce Willis was for a real investigation ... big surprise. Folks they have a protest in NY every year regarding 911 ... of course corporate media won't cover it. Let's hope NYers that want a real investigation gets it put on Nov. ballot.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 11, 2009)

Well it looks like something has been found that may answer the question of how the explosives were planted in the buildings ... 
from the good folks of WAC in Colorado. It would appear there were students living in one of the towers before 911 and there are several pictures of construction work going on.
CoreOfCorruption.com - 4 Suspects in World Trade Center Before 9/11 Doing Construction
[youtube]dA9MvV-SrCo[/youtube]
Will be interesting to see how this develops.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 11, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Al quaeda confessed, not the high jackers... remember that bin laden guy. So if al quaeda didn't do it, who did it? And what leads you to believe this? ANd do you, or do you not think the buildings were blown up?



That Bin Laden guy... which one do you mean? The real Bin Laden, or the lookalike from the "confession" video?









"One of these things is not like the others. One of these things does not belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others by the time I finish my song?"

I'm sorry, but that person in the "confession" video is NOT Bin Laden. Of course, to Americans, all the "arabs" look the same, don't they?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 11, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> That Bin Laden guy... which one do you mean? The real Bin Laden, or the lookalike from the "confession" video?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



holy shit 


doob



i love
you



i was JUST going to post this exact thing today



the man is not bin laden, bin laden is left handed, this man in the video writes using his right hand



rick, Who funds all your sources that your posting?


follow the money trail, for its also the trail of lies and deciet


----------



## Keenly (Oct 11, 2009)

if you people are so sure that your right, why not push for a new investigation so you can rub it in our faces when they come out and say we are wrong?



a real investigation... not 1 penny less than clintons impeachment investigation


----------



## c5rftw (Oct 11, 2009)

I dont believe crazy conspiracies that are developed just to say bush way evil, but the WTC 7th building collapse boggles my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 11, 2009)

Keenly said:


> holy shit
> 
> 
> doob
> ...



Not to mention the fact that the man in the video confession appears in good health, while Bin Laden was known to be suffering from renal failure (which require almost constant connection to a dialysis machine). So... where's the dialysis machine in the video?


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 11, 2009)

c5rftw said:


> I dont believe crazy conspiracies that are developed just to say bush way evil, but the WTC 7th building collapse boggles my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A



I don't think we need a "conspiracy theory" to say Bush was evil.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

c5rftw said:


> I dont believe crazy conspiracies that are developed just to say bush way evil, but the WTC 7th building collapse boggles my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A


yes, the 9/11 conspiracy is a thinly veiled anti bush cause. Another reason why the vast majority of scientists and engineers want nothing to do with a theory which is more political than scientific. 

It starts with an assumed premise and works itself backwards..... not science.


----------



## c5rftw (Oct 11, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> I don't think we need a "conspiracy theory" to say Bush was evil.



exactly my point. thank you


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 11, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I wouldn't say "jews" in general ... but the elite who happen to be jewish ... yes ... and what part of "we are going to continue to push for a real investigation" don't you understand? The burden of proof isn't on us ... it's on the government dumbass. You can post the shit that has been debunked as quickly as it flows out your ass it won't change a thing. People want a real investigation and will not stop until they get one. Too bad ... so sad that you can't handle that.


Ah, so now we get to the truth of the matter. It all ties in to the Jewish world conspiracy. I see.

And just so you know how this type of stuff works. The ACCEPTED version of 911 is the one that corresponds to the most likely explanation - that a bunch of crazy Muslims flew planes into the buildings.

There have been numerous investigation by credible sources like the ones I posted and all have supported this version.

You might believe that these findings have been "debunked" but it is NOT TRUE. There is ZERO evidence refuting the real studies of this issue that were conducted by CREDIBLE SOURCES. All you have are statements by conspiracy nuts. None of your sources are credible.

Now I know you are a bit slow so try to focus like a laser beam on what I am about to say.

When the majority of the academic and scientific world believes a given theory and a person wishes to challenge the generally accepted belief, the burden of proof is on the one who challenges the generally accepted belief.

If you had anything resembling an education in scientific method you would know this to be true - it is a matter of academic standard.

So next time you are going to call someone a dumb ass, make sure you are not the dumb ass, dumb ass.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 11, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Ah, so now we get to the truth of the matter. It all ties in to the Jewish world conspiracy. I see.


Ah no ... the truth of the matter is we are going to continue to push for a real investigation ... too bad you can't accept that.



RickWhite said:


> And just so you know how this type of stuff works. The ACCEPTED version of 911


Not by the majority ... only by deniers which is a minority.



RickWhite said:


> is the one that corresponds to the most likely explanation - that a bunch of crazy Muslims flew planes into the buildings.


With box cutter and manage to get by the tightest security in the world ... yeah ... right ... 



RickWhite said:


> There have been numerous investigation by credible sources like the ones I posted and all have supported this version.


So what ... Like I said before most people don't buy it and will continue to push for a real investigation ... to bad you can't handle that.



RickWhite said:


> You might believe that these findings have been "debunked" but it is NOT TRUE.


Yeah it has ... that's why most people don't buy the government conspiracy theory. That's why they have all these disinformation agents out trying to make folks believe they are stupid for wanting a real investigation ... too bad it doesn't work ... must be really frustrating for you. It's probably why you keep posting. You just can't stand the fact that people want answers.



RickWhite said:


> There is ZERO evidence refuting the real studies of this issue that were conducted by CREDIBLE SOURCES.


If that were true there wouldn't be all the unanswered questions that people what answers to, now would there. They seem to be credible to deniers ...not people who want a real investigation.



RickWhite said:


> All you have are statements by conspiracy nuts. None of your sources are credible.


Nothing more than your opinion and a desperate attempt to side step the real issue ... people want a real investigation and will continue to work for one no matter what you say, no matter what you post ... you can't get people to accept the government conspiracy theory ... too bad ... so sad.



RickWhite said:


> Now I know you are a bit slow so try to focus like a laser beam on what I am about to say.


... and you are even slower ... so I will say it again. People want a real investigation ... you can hee and haw all you like, but it will change nothing. People who want the truth are going to continue to push for a real investigation.



RickWhite said:


> When the majority of the academic and scientific world believes


NIST and the other bogus reports you posted are not the majority of the academic and scientific worlds as you would like people to believe ... and even if it were it will not stop people from demanding a real investigation.



RickWhite said:


> a given theory and a person wishes to challenge the generally accepted belief, the burden of proof is on the one who challenges the generally accepted belief.


No the burden of proof is on the government that put out a conspiracy theory that most people don't believe.



RickWhite said:


> If you had anything resembling an education in scientific method you would know this to be true - it is a matter of academic standard.


... and if you were a person that could handle the truth ... that people want a real investigation and are going to continue to push for one, you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to push your conspiracy theory, that the government hasn't been able to prove.



RickWhite said:


> So next time you are going to call someone a dumb ass, make sure you are not the dumb ass, dumb ass.


and next time when someone tells you people want an investigation no matter what you say try and listen dumbass.kiss-ass


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

That's just a bunch of BS......


----------



## ChChoda (Oct 11, 2009)

2000th post! 2000th post! How the hell did that happen? 2000? 

And you wanna bet there's more?

*Oh Goodie! ... 
*


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

Cause they can't prove a thing.... that's why....


----------



## ChChoda (Oct 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Cause they can't prove a thing.... that's why....


They've proven that their hobby is unproductive, at best.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

Copy pasting is fun!!!


----------



## ChChoda (Oct 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Copy pasting is fun!!!


Apparently some must derive great pleasure from it...great pleasure.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 11, 2009)

How do we know GrowRebel is a retard? Well, just look at how he responded to the points I made in the post above his.

If someone believes that people that accept the generally accepted version of 911 are a minority, that person might be a retard. 

If someone believes that your average airport in pre 911 America represents the "tightest security in the World," that person might be a retard.

If someone believes that no real investigations were done regarding 911, that person might be a retard.

If someone believes that the majority of the academic and scientific community believes in their conspiracy theory, that person might be a retard.

If someone believes that a small handful of experts from OTHER FIELDS constitute a credible source, that person might be a retard.

If someone believes that the burden of proof is not on the one challenging the generally accepted theory, that person is certainly is a retard.

So there you have it. It is official, GrowRebel is a retard.

I vote to ban GrowRebel on the grounds he is a retard and far too stupid to participate in this or any other conversation. Who seconds the motion?


----------



## hom36rown (Oct 11, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> That Bin Laden guy... which one do you mean? The real Bin Laden, or the lookalike from the "confession" video?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny, that pic doesn't look much like this pic either, that I happened to just take from the confession video. Notice the narrow bridge. Somebody just took the most distorted pic they could find.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 11, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I vote to ban GrowRebel on the grounds he is a retard and far too stupid to participate in this or any other conversation. Who seconds the motion?




LOL


ban everyone that disagrees with you


what a fail idea


you guys are not convincing anyone, i dont know why you keep trying


every day we will continue to push for a new investigation

you cant stop us, instead you should also be pushing for one to prove us wrong

rick if you disagree with everyone on our side SO badly, why do you keep coming back with personal attacks

you just keep calling grow retarted, and the posts will just keep coming

you cant stop it, no matter how much you hate

and man how it makes me smile


[youtube]jzx3-Lg9VXY[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

We're not trying to convince you.... you're too far gone. 

We're posting for all those who view the thread and want to get the real truth, the common sense which so sorely lacks from all of ur posts.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> We're not trying to convince you.... you're too far gone.
> 
> We're posting for all those who view the thread and want to get the real truth, the common sense which so sorely lacks from all of ur posts.


make sure you remind them to throw out all notions of rationality as well as the laws of chance and physics so that your story makes sense k?


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 11, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> How do we know GrowRebel is a retard? Well, just look at how he responded to the points I made in the post above his.
> 
> If someone believes that people that accept the generally accepted version of 911 are a minority, that person might be a retard.
> 
> ...


 If someone believes that someone else is a retard and tells them they are done with them a few times then continues to argue with that retard that person is certainly Rick. 

If you are So Damn Sure Grow is a retard and that "he" should be banned Why don't you just leave the thread like you said you were going to do a few times now already! Or ignore her like I'm about to do you. Second your motion? Make your own thread list the people you want banned and have a blast with all your haters.


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> We're not trying to convince you.... you're too far gone.
> 
> We're posting for all those who view the thread and want to get the real truth, the common sense which so sorely lacks from all of ur posts.


I thought you had a thread for that. I never see you paste it in here for the viewers your concerned about?


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 11, 2009)

hom36rown said:


> Funny, that pic doesn't look much like this pic either, that I happened to just take from the confession video. Notice the narrow bridge. Somebody just took the most distorted pic they could find.




ROFLMAO!! 

Your post just proves my point. "They all look the same to me!".

Osama Bin Laden wears a watch on his right wrist. The man in that video wears no watch. Osama Bin Laden does not wear a ring on his right hand. The man in the video clearly has a ring on his right hand.

This is Osama Bin Laden:








I'll admit, the guy in the video looks *somewhat* like Bin Laden. Close enough for government work. But it is NOT Bin Laden.

I'd suggest you maybe look up the circumstances under which this tape was "found" (miraculously, almost). Also check into the "other confession tape" that was supposedly released BEFORE this one (and has since vanished from the face of the earth, never to be seen again).


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> I thought you had a thread for that. I never see you paste it in here for the viewers your concerned about?



Go back a few pages.... it there


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 12, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> That's just a bunch of BS......


Says the disinformation agent.



CrackerJax said:


> Cause they can't prove a thing.... that's why....


Said the disinformation agent who continues to fail to convince the majority of the government's conspiracy theory.




ChChoda said:


> They've proven that their hobby is unproductive, at best.


Says the disinformation agent's crony ... of course nothing to dispute ... know why? ... cause you can't ... go ahead ... make any excuse you'd like ... most of us know the truth.


ChChoda said:


> Apparently some must derive great pleasure from it...great pleasure.


Oh yes indeed ... it gives me so much pleasure to see the disinformation campaign online fail, great pleasure indeed. 



RickWhite said:


> How do we know GrowRebel is a retard? Well, just look at how he responded to the points I made in the post above his.


And how do we know rick can't handle the fact that people want a real investigation? Look at his post.



RickWhite said:


> If someone believes that people that accept the generally accepted version of 911 are a minority, that person might be a retard.


... and when someone continue to disregard facts ... that make them a dumb ass ... I've posted several polls in this thread, proving my point, but to help make you look as  as you are ...
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story 
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion 
You're a minority ... too bad ... so sad.



RickWhite said:


> If someone believes that your average airport in pre 911 America represents the "tightest security in the World," that person might be a retard.


Um ... I was referring to pentagon air space and the WTC towers. Not to mention the stand down order cheney gave ... that ... hello? Are we awake yet?



RickWhite said:


> If someone believes that no real investigations were done regarding 911, that person might be a retard.


Why yes ... a person with your great mental capacity would be satisfied with a bullshit investigation where evidence was disregarded and no one had to testify under oath, and key witness could "testify" behind closed doors. Yes I could see where a person such as yourself would be satisfied with something that even six of the commissioners themselves stated was bullshit.



RickWhite said:


> If someone believes that the majority of the academic and scientific community believes in their conspiracy theory, that person might be a retard.


You have yet to prove that. Like I said before ... NIST which has been proven wrong ... and your other link doesn't represent the majority of the academic and scientific community ... 



RickWhite said:


> If someone believes that a small handful of experts from OTHER FIELDS constitute a credible source, that person might be a retard.


When those "small handful" that you love to call them submits undeniable scientific evidence, that most of us can see, while a genus like you can't accept it as fact, that make you a dumbass.



RickWhite said:


> If someone believes that the burden of proof is not on the one challenging the generally accepted theory, that person is certainly is a retard.


If one believe the government conspiracy theory with no proof, that makes them kiss-ass



RickWhite said:


> So there you have it. It is official, GrowRebel is a retard.


Yes folks ... it is official ... rick has gone mad because he simply can't face the FACT that most people don't buy the government's conspiracy theory and want a real investigation. How frustrating for him!



RickWhite said:


> I vote to ban GrowRebel on the grounds he is a retard and far too stupid to participate in this or any other conversation. Who seconds the motion?


and I vote to keep you around so I can show people just how stupid deniers really are.




Keenly said:


> you cant stop it, no matter how much you hate
> and man how it makes me smile


Great video Keenly ... thanks so much for posting that.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 12, 2009)




----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 12, 2009)

That poll proves once again that Grow rebel has ZERO reading comprehension.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 12, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> That poll proves once again that Grow rebel has ZERO reading comprehension.


Says the disinformation agent who the majority doesn't believe ... Yawn ... 

For the record ...
*This is how they place the charges to cut columns at an angle for a controlled demolition.*


----------



## Keenly (Oct 12, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


>


lol






hey cracker, dont have anything to back your claims up?



your lasts few posts have just been


"thats bs"


and 


"you cant read"

and


"no your wrong"


the majority does not beleive 9/11 was an inside job

they DO however, know that the official story is full of holes and they are sailing through a hurricane


like willie said in the video

there are a certain percentage of people whos minds will never to open to the possibility of government sponsored terror




ghandi once said there are three stages of truth

1. it is ridiculed

2. it is violently opposed

3. it is accepted as common knowledge



lets see how this one plays out


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 12, 2009)




----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 12, 2009)

I think FDD just did some right there..... 

GR.... you misread everything don't you.... go back and read the poll article.... uhhh fail.


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 12, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story


This article also says, "It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to the *fact* that the assassination of JFK was a government operation."

When did this become a fact?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 12, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> That poll proves once again that Grow rebel has ZERO reading comprehension.


The guy is a complete moron. He can't do anything but repeat lies over and over. At this point there is no reason to engage him. He claims that 84% of Americans think 911 was a conspiracy and that we have not posted any evidence while he has posted proof. Of course the opposite is true but he doesn't care. He figures that a lie repeated often enough will eventually become true.

How do you argue with a 4 year old saying "nu uh, nu uh, nu uh, nu uh" over and over? This is literally like arguing with 4 year olds.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 12, 2009)

He can't even read his own sourced poll correctly. The majority of the ppl polled believe the govt. is hiding "something". No surprise there.

Pick an issue and throw in that option as an answer.... it'll split that way every time.

That's a far cry from"america wants a new investigation or america thinks the truthers are NOT psychotic".


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 12, 2009)

I noticed the "hiding something" part right off, but didn't bother commenting on it because it's going to be automatically construed as whatever the reader wants to interpret. 

I'd love to know why the hell "I don't know" or "No opinion" or "Not sure" (etc.) is even an option in polls, anyhow. IMNSHO, if you can't answer a simple "yes" or "no" question, then you shouldn't bother answering a poll in the first place. "I don't know" isn't an opinion; it's acknowledging that you don't *have* one at this time.


----------



## degggz (Oct 12, 2009)

shit I think Mike Moore is cool ...... Man Fuck insurance !!!! Those bastards have been raping this country inside and out ...... And I wish Hilary CLinton was able to do something about this bullshit when Bill Clinton was president . He was a decent president ..... He definitely DID not do anything worse then the BUSH's for god sake, man fuck them too !!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 12, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> I noticed the "hiding something" part right off, but didn't bother commenting on it because it's going to be automatically construed as whatever the reader wants to interpret.
> 
> I'd love to know why the hell "I don't know" or "No opinion" or "Not sure" (etc.) is even an option in polls, anyhow. IMNSHO, if you can't answer a simple "yes" or "no" question, then you shouldn't bother answering a poll in the first place. "I don't know" isn't an opinion; it's acknowledging that you don't *have* one at this time.


It's easy to stack a poll.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 13, 2009)

thats the same poll i see on mainstream media less then a month ago? i thought ALL your guys info come from mainstream ?
rick are you really gonna stoop as far down as CJ an say ALL those folks are "tards" ? i will take it as u know all of um personaly? 
Like Keen said several times ....If u believe all this shit then why dont u push for an investigation so u can rub it in our faces and call us names?.......or i guess you could just keep on useing circular logic (with a VERY small circle)

i second the motion that ricky stays here!!


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 13, 2009)

degggz said:


> shit I think Mike Moore is cool ...... Man Fuck insurance !!!! Those bastards have been raping this country inside and out ...... And I wish Hilary CLinton was able to do something about this bullshit when Bill Clinton was president . He was a decent president ..... He definitely DID not do anything worse then the BUSH's for god sake, man fuck them too !!!


 

dude are you alright? hilary was running it. bill was to worried about rolling a fatty and getting his dick sucked.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 13, 2009)

hey grow rebel man no disrespect man, but you have got to stop calling people names man. it discredits you and what you are trying to do man. no offence though man just trying to help.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 13, 2009)

that would reduce his posts by half....


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I think FDD just did some right there.....
> GR.... you misread everything don't you.... go back and read the poll article.... uhhh fail.


Yawn ... repeating the same lie will get you no where.



fdd2blk said:


>


A picture of a unfinished cut from the debunked debunk.com proves nothing. Let's see a complete cut with construction workers still there.



RickWhite said:


> The guy is a complete moron.


Yes I would imagine anyone who post information you can't dispute would be a moron in your eyes ... too bad so sad. 



RickWhite said:


> He can't do anything but repeat lies over and over.


You deniers certainly love to project you own short comings on to others ... you can't seem to help yourselves.



RickWhite said:


> At this point there is no reason to engage him.


Ah yes ... we've heard this before ... how is that working out for you?



RickWhite said:


> He claims that 84% of Americans think 911 was a conspiracy and that we have not posted any evidence while he has posted proof.


Well you've gotten something right for a change ... good for you. 



RickWhite said:


> Of course the opposite is true but he doesn't care. He figures that a lie repeated often enough will eventually become true.


Projecting again?



RickWhite said:


> How do you argue with a 4 year old saying "nu uh, nu uh, nu uh, nu uh" over and over? This is literally like arguing with 4 year olds.


Aw ... still can't handle that folks want a real investigation ... too bad ... so sad.



maxamus1 said:


> hey grow rebel man no disrespect man, but you have got to stop calling people names man. it discredits you and what you are trying to do man. no offence though man just trying to help.


Well I'm sorry but I do ... I'm only giving back what they dish out ... I don't see you telling them about the name calling. I don't care for discriminating. And it doesn't matter if I call names or not ... it will not change the FACTS, the SCIENCE, or the TRUTH. Nuff said.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 13, 2009)

More and more groups for the truth ... I love it!

FireFighter For Truth
However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. *We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes *allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon evaporated. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the smoking gun. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission actually stated the they *DIDNT KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT*.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 13, 2009)

Meaning Grow Rebel cannot dispute his misreading of the poll data.


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 13, 2009)




----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 13, 2009)

I mean really.... it's his post....


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 13, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Meaning Grow Rebel cannot dispute his misreading of the poll data.


His constant multi-quoting and childish, snide wisecracks are downright humorous at this point. The guy obviously has no self awareness what so ever or he would know that everyone who reads his posts think he is a total ass. I'm betting he is some snot nosed punk that gets his ass kicked daily in school. Jesus, even people who agree with him think he is an ass. That is bad.


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 13, 2009)

Too bad... so sad...


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 13, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> His constant multi-quoting and childish, snide wisecracks are downright humorous at this point. The guy obviously has no self awareness what so ever or he would know that everyone who reads his posts think he is a total ass. I'm betting he is some snot nosed punk that gets his ass kicked daily in school. Jesus, even people who agree with him think he is an ass. That is bad.



You all are so far off base with who GR is, hell you don't even know if GR is a man or not. 

For the record I don't think GR is an ass.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 13, 2009)

I sure don't care about GR's gender....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 13, 2009)

are we starting a poll?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 13, 2009)

you guys sure do like arguing about stuff you claim you dont care about a lot

its lol able


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 13, 2009)

Keenly said:


> you guys sure do like arguing about stuff you claim you dont care about a lot
> 
> its lol able


i think you are wrong.


----------



## IAm5toned (Oct 13, 2009)

i'll argue against that


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 13, 2009)

You'd better care about mine!


----------



## NorthwestBuds (Oct 13, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i think you are wrong.


No you're wrong...


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

The gender confusion rises from the fact that GR has been neutered on so many occasions on this thread.


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 14, 2009)

DOH!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

$$$$ !!!!


----------



## edger55 (Oct 14, 2009)

Its funny the people that try to conger up things in there head to not have to get there feet wet. I guess ghosts, aliens, 32% thc plants, and what ever other subject I miss are real to, hay theres enough facts to believe. The truth is that noone likes the truth its to boring and probably recours to much work. Your boys Moore and Jones are no different than hair bands in the 80's, Marylan Manson, Paris Hilton and so on, there just doing to get there name out there because they cant do it mainstream. So props to them for taking nothing and becoming something with it.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 14, 2009)

gr i am just trying to help you out. calling names dose not help the argument out. i have told them about name calling on another thread. you can have a disagreement and be civilized about it.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 14, 2009)

sounds like you guys are all pissed off that GROW REBEL has destroyed your bullshit you claim as "evidence" MANY times on this thread. It must be time to get him/her back....... I think the name calling started *this time* with CRACKER which still has not offered nothing what so ever to this thread *but *name calling....nothing. ricky that leaves you and no drama can lease you out by now eh? You just get excited when cj starts name callin so *you *think your doing good on this thread and every single one of us that join reb and most of his believes still want a REAL investigation so you are not convinceing no one at all . 
by the way moore nor jones has anything to do with this thread AT ALL. That is BY far where we get our info from..... but on the other hand does steven jones ring a bell? he seems to be all you guys can come up with to back some of your claims. And i have done admitted several time in this thread i do not know excactly what happened that day ... but you guys continue to call us "retards" for asking simple questions, and you guys still have not admitted YOU DO NOT know what happened that day either? Would you like another link to 41 more U.S. counter terrorism and intelligence agency vets that go against what NIST says?.... how about the people that flew out of the country while the FAA had ALL air traffic banned? If reb is retarted then i would hate to know what you think about yourselves ?!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> sounds like you guys are all pissed off that GROW REBEL has destroyed your bullshit you claim as "evidence" MANY times on this thread. It must be time to get him/her back....... I think the name calling started *this time* with CRACKER which still has not offered nothing what so ever to this thread *but *name calling....nothing. ricky that leaves you and no drama can lease you out by now eh? You just get excited when cj starts name callin so *you *think your doing good on this thread and every single one of us that join reb and most of his believes still want a REAL investigation so you are not convinceing no one at all .
> by the way moore nor jones has anything to do with this thread AT ALL. That is BY far where we get our info from..... but on the other hand does steven jones ring a bell? he seems to be all you guys can come up with to back some of your claims. And i have done admitted several time in this thread i do not know excactly what happened that day ... but you guys continue to call us "retards" for asking simple questions, and you guys still have not admitted YOU DO NOT know what happened that day either? Would you like another link to 41 more U.S. counter terrorism and intelligence agency vets that go against what NIST says?.... how about the people that flew out of the country while the FAA had ALL air traffic banned? If reb is retarted then i would hate to know what you think about yourselves ?!





dude, i posted a pic of a guy cutting the exact same cut with a torch. GR responded by saying the cut in my pic wasn't done yet. at that point i felt i was dealing with an idiot so i gave up. 

i would not call that "destroyed". 


when you argue with idiots, you start to feel like one yourself. 


and you have offered? you, by your own words, have "joined" a group of opinions. what do YOU think?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 14, 2009)

edger55 said:


> Its funny the people that try to conger up things in there head to not have to get there feet wet. I guess ghosts, aliens, 32% thc plants, and what ever other subject I miss are real to, hay theres enough facts to believe. The truth is that noone likes the truth its to boring and probably recours to much work. Your boys Moore and Jones are no different than hair bands in the 80's, Marylan Manson, Paris Hilton and so on, there just doing to get there name out there because they cant do it mainstream. So props to them for taking nothing and becoming something with it.



the truth about 9/11 is not public knowledge....

hence the 9/11 truth movement




new investigations will help


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

i'm gonna "join the team". 


*waiting 








*waiting







*waiting


----------



## Keenly (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm gonna "join the team".
> 
> 
> *waiting
> ...


what exactly are you waiting for again?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

Keenly said:


> what exactly are you waiting for again?



um, a new investigation.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> um, a new investigation.


going to take a lonnnnnnng time


politicians dont care, the people get pissed off instead of actually talking about the issue, for example

yesterday some idiot decided it would be best to retaliate to my "9/11 was an inside job" bumper sticker by honking, yelling, swerving, and flipping me off

almost running himself off the road

such a mature, adult way to debate my statement isnt it, this man was like 30 years older than i am and thats how he behaves? while driving a car none the less



if people are going to continue to deny evidence (as well as scientific evidence, proven thermite and super thermite in the WTC dust) as well as just ignore what happened... then it will take a while


but im not giving up, and neither is anyone else


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

Keenly said:


> going to take a lonnnnnnng time
> 
> 
> politicians dont care, the people get pissed off instead of actually talking about the issue, for example
> ...



and why exactly did i need to know any of this? 







*waiting


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> dude, i posted a pic of a guy cutting the exact same cut with a torch. GR responded by saying the cut in my pic wasn't done yet. at that point i felt i was dealing with an idiot so i gave up.
> 
> i would not call that "destroyed".


i think you of all people KNOW i was referring to alot more then just one post...but you knew that  





fdd2blk said:


> and you have offered? you, by your own words, have "joined" a group of opinions. what do YOU think?


In my own words , i joined this thread with others who "joined" this thread like yourself. 
If gr or drama or anyone else (except some of yours) posts a link to something i READ or watch it.....(including ricky and cj) That does not mean i joined GR or keen's opinions. I do agree with most of them though....











you can proly stop waiting now...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

wait, i thought the whole point was a new investigation. now you tell me to stop waiting.

and YOU said "joined". that's why i quoted you. 

you don't read my links? why?




*confused, but still waiting


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 14, 2009)

and what do I have to offer.......well lets see, you can start with the post you are jumping on, i think there might be something in there you missed? Maybe a small question you , cj, or ricky can answer. look hard enough you might find more 

i have questions along with the engineers , firefighters, scientist, eyewittnesses, on so on and so on and until those questions are answered i will continue my mission for a new investigation..... its not that big a deal.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

lets take ONE SMALL topic. the cut beam.

COMMON SENSE states that cutting ANYTHING at a slant like that is THE most practical. the slag falls out of the way. so regardless if it was cut with thermite or cut with a rescue torch it is still going to look EXACTLY the same. this is NOT valid evidence for either side. i can admit that, can anyone else?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> and what do I have to offer.......well lets see, you can start with the post you are jumping on, i think there might be something in there you missed? Maybe a small question you , cj, or ricky can answer. look hard enough you might find more
> 
> i have questions along with the engineers , firefighters, scientist, eyewittnesses, on so on and so on and until those questions are answered i will continue my mission for a new investigation..... its not that big a deal.



wtf part of "waiting" don't YOU understand? 


*waiting


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> lets take ONE SMALL topic. the cut beam.
> 
> COMMON SENSE states that cutting ANYTHING at a slant like that is THE most practical. the slag falls out of the way. so regardless if it was cut with thermite or cut with a rescue torch it is still going to look EXACTLY the same. this is NOT valid evidence for either side. i can admit that, can anyone else?


i can admit that with u fdd..


----------



## Keenly (Oct 14, 2009)

scholars for 9/11 truth

http://911scholars.org/


scholars for 911 truth and justice

http://stj911.org/


lawyers for 9/11 truth

http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/


veterans for 9/11 truth

http://www.v911t.org/


Doctors for 9/11 truth

http://mp911truth.org/


Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/


Pilots for 9/11 truth

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/


Firefighters for 9/11 truth

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/


The Muslim-Chirstian-Jewish for 9/11 truth

http://mujca.com/


Political Leaders for 9/11 truth

http://pl911truth.com/


Religious leaders for 9/11 truth

http://rl911truth.org/


Boston for 9/11 truth

http://www.boston911truth.org/


San Diego for 9/11 truth

http://sdcgj.netrootz.com/web_pages/view_web_page.asp?group=30&page=109


Marines for 9/11 truth

http://truthaction.org/USMC.html




the waiting room is packed


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> wtf part of "waiting" don't YOU understand?
> 
> 
> *waiting




well in that case i'll wait with you 






*_waiting *_


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> i can admit that with u fdd..


you are one of the only people on the crazy team that actually has any sense. you should come over here though, we have cookies.  





i have NEVER stated what i think actually happened that day. i SAW 2 planes fly into those buildings. then the buildings fell. this i KNOW. that is all i can say. i will NOT insist on a "theory" as the truth to how or why this happened. i would not dismiss an investigation, but i will not claim to know the truth until then either. if an investigation happens and things are revealed i will make a judgment then. i'm not gonna sit here and think i know what really happened when i had nothing to do with it though.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 14, 2009)

Good links keen, although some will say they are ALL not credible, probably just because you found them on the net.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

Keenly said:


> scholars for 9/11 truth
> 
> http://911scholars.org/
> 
> ...




i wish it wasn't so loud though. you don't have to scream while standing in line. it's like honking in traffic.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you are one of the only people on the crazy team that actually has any sense. you should come over here though, we have cookies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> Good links keen, although some will say they are ALL not credible, probably just because you found them on the net.


i like how all these guys have to 


spread




out 



their



posts




so 




they 





look





bigger





and






get





more







attention










.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> dude, i posted a pic of a guy cutting the exact same cut with a torch. GR responded by saying the cut in my pic wasn't done yet. at that point i felt i was dealing with an idiot so i gave up.
> 
> i would not call that "destroyed".


I asked why the cut was unfinished ... why a diagonal cut when that is not usual procedure ... huffy 420 verified, and when I work skyscraper construction I didn't see it either. Why no picture of the finish cut with construction workers still there? But since you couldn't answer the question that made me an idiot. ... yeah ... right.




fdd2blk said:


> when you argue with idiots, you start to feel like one yourself.


Nuff said. 

What's the matter? ... all you disinformationalist/deniers couldn't handle the fact that the FF want a real investigation so you had to consult your disinformation handbook did ya? Aw ... too bad ... so sad.

Well I've got more bad news for you ... I notice I haven't put up much on the NIST report being debunked since rick seem to insist that is is credible let's take a look shall we?

Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 1 of 2
[youtube]-IACdhpfZjk[/youtube]

Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report part 2 of 2
[youtube]0VJGILSOr2k&feature=related[/youtube]

Ryan who was fired by UL for debunking NIST pancake theory talks about the tests that were done and how they conclusively proved those buildings could not have collapsed.

The papers are available at Journal of 911 Stuidies

Lots of papers debunking NIST .... 
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis 
Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false. 
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is: 
easy to understand but reasonably precise 

capable of being stated briefly verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics. 

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites
Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?  *NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.*
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

Appeal Filed with NIST, Pursuant to Earlier Request for Correction 
The enclosed Request for Correction (the Request) was submitted to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on April 12, 2007 by Bob McIlvaine, Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA Architect, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (referred to herein collectively as the Requesters) under Section
515 of Public Law 106-554, the Data Quality Act, the Office of Management and Budgets government-wide Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, and NISTs Guidelines, Information Quality Standards, and Administrative Mechanism.

NIST response to request for correction
Check out page three



> *we are unable to provide a full explanation - of the total collapse.*


I wonder why? Plenty of more inconsistencies in the letter that are pointed out ... Well as you can see by the website there are plenty of papers posted disputing the so called "official report".
Of course the disinformation agent and his socks won't be able to dispute anything ... as usual.

More 911 news ... 

NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
San Diego - On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900 architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 and are *calling for a new, independent investigation* into their destruction.

Sad news to report ...

 Three heroes of 9/11 die of cancer in five days
A firefighter and two cops who worked at Ground Zero in the days and weeks after Sept. 11 have died of cancer in the past five days, the Daily News has learned.

 Senator Lindsey Graham, giving comfort to the 9/11 Commission, is now in open denial of scientific proof of 9/11 treason
Below is some of what a representative in Senator Graham's DC office told me on October 1st in response to my further inquiry into the Senator's acknowledgment and response to the information we gave him and he willingly accepted to take a look at. <http://www.911blogger.com/node/20578>
At first contact, his office refused to say he had looked at the information. Now they have admitted he has reviewed the information but is still sticking with the 9/11 Commission Report, scientific evidence to the contrary be damned and his oath not withstanding.
Now, Senator Graham is adding an amendment to the appropriations bill that reads in part: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Justice by this Act may be obligated or expended to commence or continue the prosecution in (a civilian) court of the United States of an individual suspected of planning, authorizing, organizing, committing or aiding the attacks on the United States and its citizens that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Yeah ... he's trying to cover their war criminal asses that's why.

 Inspiring Or Damaging? Louis Farrakhan Speaks Out On 9/11, Federal Reserve 
We are no fans of Farrakhan in general, but there is really nothing in this powerful speech to disagree with. Is he for real? Or just another parasite sucking off the very genuine and growing fury of grass roots America?
Don't worry ... your insults and ridicule of the messengers won't change a thing ... *people are going to continue to push for a real investigation *... Aw ... too bad ... so sad.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> I asked why the cut was unfinished ... why a diagonal cut when that is not usual procedure ... huffy 420 verified, and when I work skyscraper construction I didn't see it either. Why no picture of the finish cut with construction workers still there? But since you couldn't answer the question that made me an idiot. ... yeah ... right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

So which is MORE LIKELY??? 

Thermite or a torch? Now we KNOW they were cutting beams everywhere with torches.... right?? Right???

So, which is MORE LIKELY??? 

A new investigation would be catastrophic for the truthers in reality. If the investigation is over...they will still not be satisfied unless their way is the outcome. Since so many ppl at the scene who are QUALIFIED to make expert testimony have ALREADY said there was no demolition or thermite burning everywhere ... what are we to think???

You guys really think that with thermite burning everywhere, and firemen running everywhere inside and out...you honestly think they wouldn't have noticed thermite cutting through beams? How many beams are there? Can you imagine how many would have been needed to drop the buildings STRAIGHT down???

You guys don't really want another investigation.... it will only throw you further down the rabbit hole.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

wanna know the worst part about this whole thread?

i would be interested in reading and watching EVERY SINGLE link and article, if GR weren't so IN MY FACE with it. it literally hurts my eyes so i have to scroll past it.


seriously, how can you teach someone anything when you choose to insult them from the get go? 

"hey stupid, let me help you."

makes no sense to me. 


*insert insult*


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

He actually thinks that how you change minds... by yelling at them.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 14, 2009)

07/07 was an inside job


----------



## IAm5toned (Oct 14, 2009)

read it and weep:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6.pdf

just read the executive summary...


----------



## IAm5toned (Oct 14, 2009)

*and then there is this- the executive summary in a nutshell:
*


*National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster*
*Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)*
(NIST NCSTAR throughout this document refers to one of the 43 volumes that comprise NIST&#8217;s final report on the WTC Towers issued in October 2005. All sections of the report listed in this document are available at http://wtc.nist.gov.) 
*1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?*
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that &#8220;&#8230; such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.&#8230;&#8221;
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
*2. Why did NIST not consider a &#8220;controlled demolition&#8221; hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the &#8220;pancake theory&#8221; hypothesis? A key critique of NIST&#8217;s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a &#8220;progressive collapse&#8221; after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis. *
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST&#8217;s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers. 
Some 200 technical experts&#8212;including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia&#8212;reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. 
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence&#8212;as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse&#8212;support this sequence for each tower.
NIST&#8217;s findings do not support the &#8220;pancake theory&#8221; of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system&#8212;that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns&#8212;consisted of a grid of steel &#8220;trusses&#8221; integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.






_Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System_​ NIST&#8217;s findings also do not support the &#8220;controlled demolition&#8221; theory since there is conclusive evidence that:


  the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
 

 the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors. 
 Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. 
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
*3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.*
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001. 
*4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?*
No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it&#8212;much like the action of a piston&#8212;forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar &#8220;puffs&#8221; were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
*5. Why were two distinct spikes&#8212;one for each tower&#8212;seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?*
The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building&#8217;s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
*6.* *How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)&#8212;speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?*
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). 
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
_&#8220;&#8230; the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation._
_Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.&#8221;_
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
*7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren&#8217;t hot enough to do so? *
*OR
**7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?*
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers _melted_ due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). 
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. 
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is _not_ certified at all; rather structural _assemblies_ are tested for their fire resistance _rating_ in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was &#8220;certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours&#8221; is simply not true.
*8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?*
Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors. 
However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water. 
Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems&#8212;which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code&#8212;were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded. 
*9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?*
Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water. 
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.
*10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?*
NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1. 
According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire. 
The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below. 
Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved&#8212;once the fireballs had dissipated&#8212;to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.
*11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?*
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1. 
Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed. 
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. 
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. 
*12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."*
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers. 
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
*13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage* *from the WTC towers?* 
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)&#8212;who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards&#8212;found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. 
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers. 
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. 
*14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse? *
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter. 
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the _June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster_ (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows: 


 An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet; 
 

 Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and 
 

 Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. 
 This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 14, 2009)

This is just laughable at this point.

I see that no matter what we post the truthers will just say it has been "debunked." Then they go on to post quotes they get from non-credible truther websites. Then, they go on to refer to these quotes as "irrefutable, fact and conclusive proof." Of course none of their quotes are any of these things.

The fact is that no credible experts agree with anything in their quotes. They say it is a fact that thermite was found in the debris when in fact there was no thermite found. If there was thermite found, where is it now? Where is this alleged thermite held? How much thermite was found?

Fact is, if you follow the links provided by the truthers you wind up at any number of truther websites, many of which even go so far as to promote a Jewish conspiracy as being behind 911. Obviously the truthers see any statement that backs their views as "conclusive proof" of a conspiracy even when the person making the claim has zero expertise in any field related to the issue.

The funny thing is that the truthers can not come up with a single solitary quote from a non-biased, credible source. Not one genuine science journal, not one finding from any major university, not one alternate explanation from any legitimate organization with no dog in the fight. Every single solitary quote they have is from a radical conspiracy theory website and written by a non-expert.

Why is this the case? Why is it that not one single shred of conspiracy evidence comes from a legitimate source?

But of course this is a silly question because I know they will say that all their sources are credible and all the well known science journals and organizations and all the universities lack credibility and have all been debunked. At this point I can see that there is nothing to their argument beyond the technique of repeating a lie until it becomes the truth. 

Trying to talk sense into the truthers really is futile. Their warped minds desperately want to believe in a conspiracy and they are prepared to comb the ground with a magnifying glass for support of their depravity despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. This is a disease pure and simple.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

WOW.... what a snow job!!!! This is obviously a HUGE conspiracy and everyone is in on it!!!!

Oh my....


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 14, 2009)

IAm5toned said:


> *and then there is this- the executive summary in a nutshell:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great post but I'm going to say it first and beat them all to it.

Everything above has been debunked. Just find any truther website and you will find guys who say so and what they say is conclusive proof.

Never mine the fact that none of the truther websites are credible and that none of the people doing the "debunking" are experts in any related area. You can just assume that if it was written by some pseudo-scientist on a truther website it has to be an irrefutable fact.

Well guys, am I learning how to be a truther or what?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

[youtube]lBwQ2yxeg4g[/youtube]


----------



## IAm5toned (Oct 14, 2009)

i like the pilots for 9/11 truth site the best... buncha guys playing flight simulator... they have an impressive membership list BUT it seems none of there 'expert' members have ever made any posts in there forum..


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Great post but I'm going to say it first and beat them all to it.
> 
> Everything above has been debunked. Just find any truther website and you will find guys who say so and what they say is conclusive proof.
> 
> ...



what, no insult?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

[youtube]IL0WcZAM_Zk[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

You watch that and tell me George over reacted!!!!

Mofo's still got some coming to them. We need a warrior President!!!


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 14, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> this is NOT valid evidence for either side. i can admit that, can anyone else?


Why sure


Keenly said:


> scholars for 9/11 truth
> http://911scholars.org/
> 
> scholars for 911 truth and justice
> ...


Keenly I was looking for something like this to show the deniers that claim no one is listening ... wrong again ... too bad ... so sad. Thanks so much for posting this! 



fdd2blk said:


> wanna know the worst part about this whole thread?
> 
> i would be interested in reading and watching EVERY SINGLE link and article, if GR weren't so IN MY FACE with it. it literally hurts my eyes so i have to scroll past it.
> seriously, how can you teach someone anything when you choose to insult them from the get go?
> ...


That's your interpretation ... not my intentions ... I can't help that if you misunderstand.



fdd2blk said:


> "nuff said", then you post a shit ton more.


That wasn't for you. That was the news update.



IAm5toned said:


> read it and weep:
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6.pdf
> 
> just read the executive summary...





IAm5toned said:


> *and then there is this- the executive summary in a nutshell:
> *


This is how funny these deniers are ... I post proof that the report was bogus ... and what do they do ... post the bogus report. 

Hello? Are we awake yet?


----------



## Keenly (Oct 14, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> This is how funny these deniers are ... I post proof that the report was bogus ... and what do they do ... post the bogus report.
> 
> Hello? Are we awake yet?



i did kinda think it was funny that right as i finish watching the video that post showed up


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

Yes the only official three year report is bogus because GR says so. The rest of the country disagrees.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 14, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Why sure


so now you will agree, even though it's not cut all the way thru? 


you do this for shits and giggles.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 14, 2009)

Certainly not for effectiveness....


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 15, 2009)

just picture 47 giant steel core columns and over 200 beams surrounding that. Now take and add up the floors where the planes hit . (thats alot of area to cover) Now dump 20,000 or so gallons of jet fuel on them. (i just went and seen a 18,000 gallon fish tank so i have an idea of what 24,000 gallons might look like) Now you dont even have to factor in the giant fireball cause thats wasting some of your much needed fuel for this "experiment", or theory or whatever you would like to call it. ok its hard to explain without pics of what the whole 24,000 gallons looks like....... but reguardless if you were to dump that much liquid all over ALL 47 core beams then that liquid would barley reach the ground. thats only 500 gallons per beam? so would ALL 47 core beams be saturated in enough fuel to "melt" or "weaken" those beams to the point of complete failure? 
Now remember folks common sense tells us that ALL 47 beams have to be "cut" or "melted" or something to get all the way to the ground, even just one beam that has not completely failed will not be more then bent or smashed and we seen *NO* bent or smashed core beams in any of the pics of ground zero , and even if you (cj, rick) did not see ANY ground zero pics , Dont common sense tell you there should be more standing then just what you seen on tv ?

i just seen the giant fish tank and had to throw my opinion out there


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 15, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> just picture 47 giant steel core columns and over 200 beams surrounding that. Now take and add up the floors where the planes hit . (thats alot of area to cover) Now dump 20,000 or so gallons of jet fuel on them. (i just went and seen a 18,000 gallon fish tank so i have an idea of what 24,000 gallons might look like) Now you dont even have to factor in the giant fireball cause thats wasting some of your much needed fuel for this "experiment", or theory or whatever you would like to call it. ok its hard to explain without pics of what the whole 24,000 gallons looks like....... but reguardless if you were to dump that much liquid all over ALL 47 core beams then that liquid would barley reach the ground. thats only 500 gallons per beam? so would ALL 47 core beams be saturated in enough fuel to "melt" or "weaken" those beams to the point of complete failure?
> Now remember folks common sense tells us that ALL 47 beams have to be "cut" or "melted" or something to get all the way to the ground, even just one beam that has not completely failed will not be more then bent or smashed and we seen *NO* bent or smashed core beams in any of the pics of ground zero , and even if you (cj, rick) did not see ANY ground zero pics , Dont common sense tell you there should be more standing then just what you seen on tv ?
> 
> i just seen the giant fish tank and had to throw my opinion out there


Why do we need experts when we have your uneducated observations?

I guess the gig is up, you figured it all out. Wow! Just fing wow!


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 15, 2009)

Ppl with youtube know more than experts.... right?

It's all based upon a political view.... which immediately discredits the science being used.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 15, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> just picture 47 giant steel core columns and over 200 beams surrounding that. Now take and add up the floors where the planes hit . (thats alot of area to cover) Now dump 20,000 or so gallons of jet fuel on them. (i just went and seen a 18,000 gallon fish tank so i have an idea of what 24,000 gallons might look like) Now you dont even have to factor in the giant fireball cause thats wasting some of your much needed fuel for this "experiment", or theory or whatever you would like to call it. ok its hard to explain without pics of what the whole 24,000 gallons looks like....... but reguardless if you were to dump that much liquid all over ALL 47 core beams then that liquid would barley reach the ground. thats only 500 gallons per beam? so would ALL 47 core beams be saturated in enough fuel to "melt" or "weaken" those beams to the point of complete failure?
> Now remember folks common sense tells us that ALL 47 beams have to be "cut" or "melted" or something to get all the way to the ground, even just one beam that has not completely failed will not be more then bent or smashed and we seen *NO* bent or smashed core beams in any of the pics of ground zero , and even if you (cj, rick) did not see ANY ground zero pics , Dont common sense tell you there should be more standing then just what you seen on tv ?
> 
> i just seen the giant fish tank and had to throw my opinion out there




i posted this earlier, you might have missed it, ...


[youtube]cddIgb1nGJ8[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 15, 2009)

Scientists??? What do they know???


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 15, 2009)

i did not want to post in here about this sense i am in the created by cj. fdd that vid sucks as soon as the wings would have hit the building they would have come off. that dismisses the vid right there.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 15, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> i did not want to post in here about this sense i am in the created by cj. fdd that vid sucks as soon as the wings would have hit the building they would have come off. that dismisses the vid right there.


i guess Purdue university is stupid.  

can i see your source please?


 https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/256322-pot-makes-you-stupid.html


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 15, 2009)

NIST says the plane that hit WTC1 had a full belly tank of fuel, purdue says it was empty? NIST says 9 of the 47 columns were damaged or destroyed Purdue says 57. They also say in their report is was AA77? In the same T.V show that had purdue's animation they shot a aluminum cylinder into a mock up pentagon. they scaled down the the pentagon and the cylinder but not the speed?


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 15, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes the only official three year report is bogus because GR says so. The rest of the country disagrees.


Yawn ... can't dispute the evidence so you make shit up... why yes ... I am in the videos ...simply stating the report is bogus... and the papers ...I did write. Those two white guys in the video ... that's me in make up!
You wish the rest of the country disagrees ... you have yet to prove it ... and you know why? .... cause you can't!Oh and I don't see any of you disputing the NIST own admission that I posted stating they didn't know what brought the towers down.



fdd2blk said:


> so now you will agree, even though it's not cut all the way thru?


Yes, I can agree it help neither side.




fdd2blk said:


> you do this for shits and giggles.


Nope.



RickWhite said:


> Why do we need experts when we have your uneducated observations?


Says the guy that uses bogus reports to support a conspiracy theory most people don't buy. Can't handle the fact that experts show proof of a demo? Aw ... too bad ... so sad. 



RickWhite said:


> I guess the gig is up, you figured it all out. Wow! Just fing wow!


Keenly that video you posted with Willie Nelson, Alex Jones and Jessie Ventura really speaks volumes. Ventura said his inlaws simply refuse to even look at the evidence, they refuse to accept that high level government official would kill them. They just don't want to hear it. There will always be a part of the population, whose head simply can't wrap around that fact. ... picture the scene where Jack Nicolson's character screams "you can't handle the truth" in a "Few Good Men" ... They will deny even when it stares them in the face. This is the case of rick.



CrackerJax said:


> Ppl with youtube know more than experts.... right?


Aw ... no ... people with youtube can listen to real scientists and get the real facts. Youtube really blows your game doesn't it?



CrackerJax said:


> It's all based upon a political view


No ... it's base on scientific facts ... the papers are posted ... yet I don't see you disputing any of the science ... know why? ... cause you can't!



CrackerJax said:


> .... which immediately discredits the science being used.


Says the disinformation agent with ... as usual ... nothing to back his statement ... why am I not surprised?



fdd2blk said:


> i posted this earlier, you might have missed it, ...


That video shows a simulation of the plane hitting the tower and the damage to that area ... it does not explain why the building collapsed.

I haven't checked the news yet kids, but if I see something of interested I will post it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 15, 2009)

You have no proof ... poof.

If you had proof.... it would be in all the headlines.

It's all been looked at and has all been debunked..... every last piece of spliced vid and zoomed pics taken out of context and twisted like the center columns.

.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 15, 2009)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Has Uncle Sam Strayed? Is He Cheating on Us?[/FONT]
9/11 Wasn't the First and Won't Be the Last
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We make it easy for them. Lying to us is nothing. Our own government is a pack of philandering cheats, phony attacks, lying about wars, never a word of truth we can depend on. No matter what kind of outlandish thing they do, some "commission" covers it up. We don't need any of their blue ribbon commissions, we need a good divorce lawyer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What happens when the delusional "super patriots" in our government go totally nuts on us as years of odd coincidences is beginning to prove to even the biggest dullards? What happens to keep one of their conspiracies from blowing up in their faces? First, word leaks out. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A few weeks later, anyone who says anything is called a "conspiracy nut." Newspapers can't carry stories once anyone says "conspiracy." What does it cause? Simple. Give a group total power to do anything they want, no matter how brutal, how insane. Make them above the law. Show them that anything can be covered up, that the press will no longer look into anything and that "national security" can be used to classify evidence for decades, even centuries and we have opened the door to barbarism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why is there a huge 9/11 conspiracy movement? Another no-brainer. It is no big stretch of the imagination that Bush, Cheney and Rove could get a pack of rogue CIA/Mossad folks to do anything if the end result ended up as the war Bush was put in office to start. We've been between the sheets with these folks for a long time, think about the USS Liberty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why are millions willing to believe Obama wasn't born in the US? Simple. If a secret group running our government could rig the Bush elections, blow up the World Trade Center, murder two Kennedy's, fill our streets with drugs and rob the entire planet's financial system, putting a Muslim from Kenya in the White House would be a piece of cake. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where does this leave us? How does a generation of Americans live when confronted with one inexplicable thing after another, all having the look of being a bit too convenient and happening at just the right time. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many Americans pick up a newspaper or watch TV and as soon as they hear a rumor about an attack or a story about some threat. As soon as we see a Pentagon fat ass on TV reading about some imaginary bogeyman on his teleprompter, we know what's coming. Its too bad we set up phony terrorist attacks to end wars rather than just start them. We need one right now to get us out of Afghanistan.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Maybe we can arrange one proving that Al Qaeda is in Africa and we can pack up, leave Afghanistan and Iraq and go there instead. The worst part of that, even if there is no enemy for us to fight, as in Iraq, one will show up anyway, just because we are there. Is this always the plan in the first place?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can't turn on the TV and head to the cable/satellite channels, A&E, Military History, Discovery and others without being confronted by continual assaults on our traditional view of history, many of the shows carefully outlining how what we have always believed was a convenient lie meant to shut us up. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Between the ghosts and UFOs, shows like the Secret History of WW2, which debunks 75% of the accepted history of mankind's greatest conflict, shows us how far government goes and how little newspapers and historians really know. Somewhere, in basements all over Washington DC, classified documents that would make a mockery of everything we hold true sit and collect dust. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How does this make us feel? Its like we are all married to people we find really aren't going to a job every day but heading off to a motel somewhere. One day, we follow them and see them coming out with a mysterious stranger. We confront them. They tell us that we made it all up.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Every American who chooses to believe the government when they yell out "conspiracy theory" is like the spouse being lied to. You can keep quiet and pretend to believe, living a marriage more lie than real or you can break up your family, maybe lose you home, your kids, because you can't live a lie.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In some cases, it goes much further, its like we watched the whole thing through the motel window, hell, it is even as bad as if we kept a video tape. The Iraq War, the rigged elections, the anthrax outbreaks, the Sibel Edmonds spying scandal and the financial bailout are just like this. We have it all, videos, stained sheets, the whole thing and seem to be enjoying the humiliation&#8230;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Read more at Veterans Today[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://buchanan.org[/FONT]​


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 15, 2009)

I do think the plan was to draw Al Queda into Iraq and commit themselves. They did.... and it worked perfectly. Humiliated and decimated.

Yes!!

Now they see the Clinton weakness and blinders are back on. expect more trouble.... lots of it.
__________________


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> This is just laughable at this point.


Yes you and the rest of the deniers trying to push a bogus report as fact ... yet the people that want a real investigation just don't seem to buy it ... and you can't seem to handle that ... which is laughable.
 


RickWhite said:


> I see that no matter what we post the truthers will just say it has been "debunked."


Only because it has been ... with the  proof to back it up.




RickWhite said:


> Then they go on to post quotes they get from non-credible truther websites.


What evidence ... besides you stated it ... that these are "quotes" from "non-credible truther websites" Don't worry I won't hold my breath. You won't respond with proof ... know why? ... cause you can't!



RickWhite said:


> Then, they go on to refer to these quotes as "irrefutable, fact and conclusive proof." Of course none of their quotes are any of these things.


No ... we refer to papers like this
The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. [1]
Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is *so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis*. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:

*easy to understand but reasonably precise*

*capable of being stated briefly*

*verifiable by any reader with average computer
*
... and this ...
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable
difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented
destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan
2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NISTs story, *it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. *This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; *first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics,* and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with
explosive and thermite materials.
I just can't wait to hear why these "quotes" are non-credible.
 


RickWhite said:


> The fact is that no credible experts agree with anything in their quotes.


Like who? NIST? Who?



RickWhite said:


> They say it is a fact that thermite was found in the debris when in fact there was no thermite found.


Wrong again ... no surprises though ... This was posted way back on page 34 post 339
*Thermite and the
WTC Collapses*
Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_explosives.html*Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say*

Active thermitic material confirmed

Page 60 post 594
[youtube]o44hoYVahJk[/youtube]
Of course you will pretend it's not credible or doesn't exist what ever excuse you can come up with. 




RickWhite said:


> If there was thermite found, where is it now? Where is this alleged thermite held? How much thermite was found?


I have no idea how much was found ...
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an *unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic*.




RickWhite said:


> Fact is, if you follow the links provided by the truthers you wind up at any number of truther websites, many of which even go so far as to promote a Jewish conspiracy as being behind 911.


such as?



RickWhite said:


> Obviously the truthers see any statement that backs their views as "conclusive proof" of a conspiracy even when the person making the claim has zero expertise in any field related to the issue.


Who is making a claim with zero expertise?



RickWhite said:


> The funny thing is that the truthers can not come up with a single solitary quote from a non-biased, credible source.


been there done that, this thread is full of them just because you can't accept them as credible doesn't mean they are not.



RickWhite said:


> Not one genuine science journal, not one finding from any major university,


Wrong again ...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Kudos to *Brigham Young University* for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper.
The was a foreign university that did a study, but I can't remember who it was ... if I find it I will post it.



RickWhite said:


> not one alternate explanation from any legitimate organization with no dog in the fight.


So what do the Dutch scientist and the other foreign scientists I have posted in this thread have to gain by lying about the scientific data concerning 911?



RickWhite said:


> Every single solitary quote they have is from a radical conspiracy theory website and written by a non-expert.


Now most of us know that's a lie, but I'll be fair ... proof it. Show us these quotes that come form radical conspiracy theory websites ... you won't though ... know why? cause you can't!



RickWhite said:


> Why is this the case? Why is it that not one single shred of conspiracy evidence comes from a legitimate source?


Um ... because you pretend it doesn't ... yet are unable to prove it doesn't. That's why.



RickWhite said:


> But of course this is a silly question because I know they will say that all their sources are credible and all the well known science journals and organizations and all the universities lack credibility and have all been debunked.


such as?



RickWhite said:


> At this point I can see that there is nothing to their argument beyond the technique of repeating a lie until it becomes the truth.


Self projecting again I see



RickWhite said:


> Trying to talk sense into the truthers really is futile.


Oh yeah ... wanting a real investigation goes why beyond sense. 



RickWhite said:


> Their warped minds desperately want to believe in a conspiracy


You mean like you desperately want to stop people from wanting a real investigation?




RickWhite said:


> and they are prepared to comb the ground with a magnifying glass for support of their depravity despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.


Like you who are willing to bury your head in the sand to avoid the facts?



RickWhite said:


> This is a disease pure and simple.


It must be ... not being able to handle the FACT that people want a real investigation into what happen on 911 ... too bad ... so sad.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 15, 2009)

GR, regardless of your or my views on this subject, you really need to understand how bad you make yourself look with all that multi-quoting and that large print. People find these thing tremendously annoying. Plus, you don't have to make snide comments in response to every sentence. If you want to be an effective communicator and make a persuasive argument, you need to learn how to address only the key points and to phrase your responses in a single well articulated piece. Multi-quoting really does make you look childish and I don't mean that as an insult.

Now getting back tot he subject. Thermite is iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. There is no doubt that both of these were present in the WTC debris, that in no way proves that anyone used thermite.

But regardless, you have posted a number of links to articles written by people who's credibility is in question. If you intend to use them as a source of information, you first need to establish their credibility. 

Can you do that? Can you provide any reason we should listen to what these people say? Who are these people?

You see, the info we provided is from people who are well known and well respected in the academic and scientific community. Can you show us that the same is true of your sources?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 15, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If you had proof.... it would be in all the headlines.




Your not helping yourself out none today..
I knew you was all about the "headlines" .....they really should give you a dollar or two for tryin ......


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 15, 2009)

Hey GR, I did a little research into one of your main sources. That article on thermite being found in the WTC dust is published in an on line "journal" that anyone can post in. So in other words, the "journal" is a joke and your author can't get his nonsense published in a legitimate journal. Here is some info.

Open Chemical Physics Journalhttp://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/Publisher: Bentham open. The Open Chemical Physics Journal is an *Open Access online journal* whichpublishes research articles, reviews and letters in all areas of chemicalphysics. The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal which aims toprovide the most complete and reliable source of information on currentdevelopments in chemical physics. The emphasis will be on publishing qualitypapers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.ISSN: 1874-4125Editor-in-Chiefrof. Marie-Paule PileniFaculty of ScienceLaboratoire des Matériaux Mésoscopiques et NanomètriquesUniversity P & M Curie *ParisFrance*Email: [email protected]tracts available online. Articles available in PDF format. Current Issue: Volume 1, 2008Date: 9 July 2008 

Well there you have it. Your "proof" is an article posted in an open online (fake) journal.The editor in chief of this alleged journal lives in Paris France which is hugely anti-American and anti-Semetic Country with a huge Muslim population.What legitimate journals publish this chode?


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 15, 2009)

I was doing a search and I came across this site ... 
911 Physics
Lots of information, and those that get into math ... that too.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 15, 2009)

Here is a little backgroun on one of the authors of your "proof."

*The Strange Saga of Jeffrey Farrer *



Those of you who have been following this blog for a while have probably noticed that I have a hobby of following the Full Members of ST911 (yes, I know, I should collect stamps or something). Originally in May, I brought up the issue that Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member, even though he was a lab manager, and not a professor. Then in August, after Judy Wood complained to Jim Fetzer, he was demoted to a Student Member. A week or two later, after Judy Wood left he was then promoted to Jeffrey Farrer PhD, a Full Member.

Now only a few weeks later he has quit the organization entirely.

Farrer, who manages BYU's Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory, sent an e-mail asking the group to remove his name from the Web site on Sept. 7, hours before BYU administrators informed Jones they were placing him on paid leave. Farrer had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the content of scholarsfor911truth.org. He was disturbed that it appeared to have a political viewpoint, though he said he would continue to work with the group. 


"If it's a scholarly Web site, I don't think they should have a political viewpoint," Farrer said. "I thought there was too much finger-pointing and maybe a little too much speculation that wasn't based on confirmable evidence."​


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> GR, regardless of your or my views on this subject, you really need to understand how bad you make yourself look with all that multi-quoting and that large print.


First of all in my browser your print is very small while mine looks normal ... sorry if it looks large on your browser, but that's how it goes. And I always address each point a poster makes it you can't handle that ... too bad.



RickWhite said:


> People find these thing tremendously annoying.


I post the 911 news if deniers find it annoying I shouldn't wonder why.



RickWhite said:


> Plus, you don't have to make snide comments in response to every sentence.


I don't that's merely your interpretation.



RickWhite said:


> If you want to be an effective communicator and make a persuasive argument,


I am and I do ... you and the rest of the deniers just don't think so that's all. No problem there.



RickWhite said:


> you need to learn how to address only the key points and to phrase your responses in a single well articulated piece.


No ... I need to post the news about 911.



RickWhite said:


> Multi-quoting really does make you look childish and I don't mean that as an insult.


Not to me ... and that's all that matters, not that many posters do it as well.



RickWhite said:


> Now getting back tot he subject. Thermite is iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. There is no doubt that both of these were present in the WTC debris, that in no way proves that anyone used thermite.


Already posted and reposted what the Danish scientist did to prove it wasn't "rust and aluminum" ... not to mention the papers I posted ... if you don't want to look at the evidence it's not my problem.



RickWhite said:


> But regardless, you have posted a number of links to articles written by people who's credibility is in question.


You keep saying that, but never state who. Know why? Cause you can't.



RickWhite said:


> If you intend to use them as a source of information, you first need to establish their credibility.


Their credibility has already been established in this thread. 



RickWhite said:


> Can you do that? Can you provide any reason we should listen to what these people say? Who are these people?


If you don't want to check in the thread simply do a google on Jones, Gage, and the other engineers and scientists who work I posted ... and you can see there credentials for yourself. 



RickWhite said:


> You see, the info we provided is from people who are well known and well respected in the academic and scientific community.


Like who ... you keep saying that, but continue to fail to say who ... NIST? ... we proved they are bogus ... who?



RickWhite said:


> Can you show us that the same is true of your sources?


What same? Another figment of your imagination I see ... you have yet to do so. I have in this thread.



RickWhite said:


> Hey GR, I did a little research into one of your main sources. That article on thermite being found in the WTC dust is published in an on line "journal" that anyone can post in. So in other words, the "journal" is a joke and your author can't get his nonsense published in a legitimate journal. Here is some info.
> 
> Well there you have it. Your "proof" is an article posted in an open online (fake) journal.The editor in chief of this alleged journal lives in Paris France which is hugely anti-American and anti-Semetic Country with a huge Muslim population.What legitimate journals publish this chode?


Now you are going to have to explain where you get "fake" from a journal 



> which publishes research articles, reviews and letters in all areas of chemical physics. The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal *which aims to provide the most complete and reliable source *of information on current developments in chemical physics


Oh and ... this is just one of many ... so it's not like this is the only one you have to dispute.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 15, 2009)

And then there is Steven M Jones also of BYU. Jones was a founder of 911 scholars for truth. Here is what BYU thinks of Jones' theories.


On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. [19] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps *it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" *as reasons for putting him under review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones



*You see GR, it looks like your sources are a house of cards and the house is falling down.*


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> *You see GR, it looks like your sources are a house of cards and the house is falling down.*



And you would think that if it truly were a house of cards coming down that at least SOMETHING would have happened in the last 3 years, but the movement is stronger than ever and gets stronger by the day.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 15, 2009)

Now let us look at your article "Missing Jolt: A simple refutation of the NIST..."

Here is the other so called journal where this is published. It is another "open access" journal. Look who is the Editor - why it's our old friend Steven Jones! Looks like all your sources come from a guy who was booted from BYU for being a nut.

Is this what you are calling "proof"?

Here is a little FYI. Legitimate academic, science or trade journals are not likely to be open source journals because the Editors of legitimate journals have standards that they maintain. Being published in a real journal is not something anyone can do.

I have been formally trained in writing journal acceptable material and I have been trained to know which sources are legit and which are not. Your sources are not legitimate sources. 

Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Publisher: Journal of 9/11 Studies

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only
journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is
freely available on line.

The Editors invite article submissions from all researchers working at the
forefront of investigations related to 9/11/2001 and its aftermath.

Editors:

Prof. Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
N-269 Eyring Science Center
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah, USA 84602

Email: [email protected]

Prof. Judy D. Wood 
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Clemson University 
Clemson, So. Carolina, USA 29634

Email: [email protected]

Content available in PDF format.

Current Issue: Volume 1 June 2006

Date: 27 June 2006


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 15, 2009)

Yes, BYU has disavowed Jones. It takes a lot for a University to walk away from one of their professors.... just one more indication.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 16, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, BYU has disavowed Jones. It takes a lot for a University to walk away from one of their professors.... just one more indication.



of what? that the media demonizes anyone who says anything other than the nonsense story were given?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

BYU is the university that Jones worked at... it's not the media. His own PEERS are embarrassed by him. He is not an expert, and his peers who know him BEST concur.

No media is necessary..... this is by the people who are familiar with his work and reputation.

Not surprising.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

[youtube]xV7Ha3VDbzE[/youtube]


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Here is a little backgroun on one of the authors of your "proof."


You call this proof? It doesn't discredit the science that was used. Nor does it discredits their credentials. You can't seem to read ... 



> He was disturbed that it appeared to have a political viewpoint, though *he said he would continue to work with the group.*


 
I highly doubt he would continue to work with the group if he didn't believe the science involved.



RickWhite said:


> And then there is Steven M Jones also of BYU. Jones was a founder of 911 scholars for truth. Here is what BYU thinks of Jones' theories.
> 
> 
> On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. [19] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps *it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" *as reasons for putting him under review.


Being put on paid leave doesn't sound like much of a punishment, I which I could get paid leave from work. Man ... get paid and free to do what ever I liked ... now that's a punishment I could use! This doesn't discredited Jones ... it's probably an indication of government pressure ... BYU may receive government funding. 




RickWhite said:


> *You see GR, it looks like your sources are a house of cards and the house is falling down.*


Only to the disinformationalist/deniers ... nothing new there ... and not a problem.




RickWhite said:


> Now let us look at your article "Missing Jolt: A simple refutation of the NIST..."
> 
> Here is the other so called journal where this is published. It is another "open access" journal.


That's your proof? Because it's an "open access journal" how lame is that? 



RickWhite said:


> Look who is the Editor - why it's our old friend Steven Jones! Looks like all your sources come from a guy who was booted from BYU for being a nut.


That's just your imagination going wild again ... being put on paid leave doesn't sound like getting booting for being a nut ... in your delusional mind I can see it ... but for most of us ... not



RickWhite said:


> Is this what you are calling "proof"?


Yes it is ... and I don't see you disputing the evidence in the paper ... your only hope seem to be to discredit the author some how ... to bad it doesn't work. Come back when you can dispute the evidence presented in the papers and videos I post ... you won't though ... know why? ... cause you can't!



RickWhite said:


> Here is a little FYI. Legitimate academic, science or trade journals are not likely to be open source journals because the Editors of legitimate journals have standards that they maintain.


Says the denier who has been unable to dispute the facts and evidence present in this thread.



RickWhite said:


> Being published in a real journal is not something anyone can do.


Oh you mean like Richard Gage?
I posted this way back on page 147 post #1470
[FONT=&quot]Richard Gage article on 9/11 WTC contolled demolitions appears in WorldArchitectureNews.com[/FONT]
So this blows your pet theory of trying to discredit the messenger.

 


RickWhite said:


> I have been formally trained in writing journal acceptable material


Oh how wonderful  ... you get a cookie!



RickWhite said:


> and I have been trained to know which sources are legit and which are not. Your sources are not legitimate sources.


Oh yeah ... I can tell by your post you are an authority ... 



RickWhite said:


> Journal of 9/11 Studies
> 
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/
> 
> ...


Another failed attempt to discredit ... if only you could discredit the material ... too bad ... so sad.

Hey rick guess what? People STILL want a real investigation into 911.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i guess Purdue university is stupid.
> 
> can i see your source please?
> 
> ...


 
if you were to watch any airplane crash. where the wing hit another plain or the ground, the wing would come off. the wings are meant to hold the weight of the fuel or whatever is attached to them, also to hold the plaine up. they are not designed for impact.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 16, 2009)

Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man GrowRebel you are a hoot. Tell me something honestly - how old are you and what do you do for a living? I'm betting you are a kid living at home.

Dude, be man enough to admit when you have lost.

Arguing with GR is like trying to get past the Black Knight. What a tool.

I can only laugh at him at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 16, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> if you were to watch any airplane crash. where the wing hit another plain or the ground, the wing would come off. the wings are meant to hold the weight of the fuel or whatever is attached to them, also to hold the plaine up. they are not designed for impact.


Neither is a deer; ever see what one does to a car Copernicus?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

The wing would do whatever the physics of any particular crash dictate. How many planes do you know which have flown into large skyscrapers at over 500 mph? 

Think it through. Heck, merely reading Grow Rebel's posts should let you know ur backing the loon side of the issue.

In most plane crashes...they DUMP the fuel if they can.... this one was loaded ...part of the plan.

In most plane crashes, the pilots are trying to come in as SLOW as they are able to do.... 9/11 the pilots were PEDAL to the METAL....


Think it through... use ur logic....and step away from the nuts.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

yes i have seen what one will do to a car. also deer's have ligaments muscles that keep their body intact. a plane dose not.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The wing would do whatever the physics of any particular crash dictate. How many planes do you know which have flown into large skyscrapers at over 500 mph?
> 
> Think it through. Heck, merely reading Grow Rebel's posts should let you know ur backing the loon side of the issue.
> 
> ...


 
now to get to the point yes you are right about getting rid of the fuel and such. however the wings would have separated at time of impact. even if they were full of fuel. witch makes it hard to believe about the extra fuel burning. there was a big explosion at time of impact that carried through to the other side. witch would have taken a lot of fuel. also the faster the plane is going the harder the impact the more pressure the plane has to endure.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

You cannot say with certainty what the wings would have done...... only scientific modeling can answer that but probably not with 100% accuracy.... but within REASON.

This has never happened before and no one has ever devised a defense of it either. Let's just face some facts:

Clinton weakened our intelligence operations globally. They were never THAT accurate, especially in the Arab world. When the Russians set off their first nuke, it was a COMPLETE SURPRISE to Truman. He thought they would never figure it out.... honestly. 
So, weakened information gathering coupled with an ingenious and awesome plan... let's be honest...it was a great idea...if ur a nutjob terrorist. Planes are not designed to be that strong....lightness is the goal. That jetfuel was the kicker. The ace in the hole.

Did the terrorists KNOW that the towers would fall? Probably not.... but they knew the carnage and SYMBOLISM would be MASSIVE. The towers dropping was icing on the cake.... but not necessary.

In the end, it was a brilliantly simple attack which took advantage of our weaknesses.

You have to give them their due..... Al Queda won that round. But we got up before the next bell didn't we? We sure did..... and then all hell broke loose.

We hit them in Agfghanistan and pinned it down while we took care of an old nemesis and then told Osama & Al Queda to BRING IT to Iraq!! They did...even Osama called it the Central Front. 
We paid Al Queda back for their treachery. This isn't about finding out exactly which individual did this or that... it's the organization which needs to be defeated... not any one person. It's the idea that you can go around killing innocent ppl in cowardly ways, and get a benefit from it.

The plan worked....plain and simple...at least up till now. Obama seems willing to let it all slip through his fingers.... after all of the cost in blood and funds... he is letting all go....as if that's the answer.... it is not. You may quit fighting, but if the other side doesn't quit.... ur in trouble. that is the danger Obama brings us now. They think we're quitters...weak. That is all they need.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Man GrowRebel you are a hoot. Tell me something honestly - how old are you and what do you do for a living? I'm betting you are a kid living at home.


Are you?



RickWhite said:


> Dude, be man enough to admit when you have lost.


If I have ... I will ... but since you have been unable to dispute any of the evidence posted other than posting bogus reports ... it's save to say I haven't lost anything.



RickWhite said:


> Arguing with GR is like trying to get past the Black Knight. What a tool.


Says the deniers that can't handle that folks simply want a real investigation ... awww...



RickWhite said:


> I can only laugh at him at this point.


Me too ... cause you keep saying that ... you must be in hysterics by now. 

Hey rick ... guess what? ... people STILL want a real investigation into 911 ... and will not stop until they get it.

Now on to the 911 news ...

Danish Prime Minister Knew WTC Would Collapse
During a recent interview on Danish television, the former Prime Minister of Denmark admitted that he received a message 5 to 10 minutes beforehand telling him that the south tower of the World Trade Center was going to collapse, prompting questions as to why the victims and rescue personnel inside the building didnt get the same warning.

The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
_Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?_

Obama Renews Bush's 9/11 State of Emergency 
On September 10th, President Obama reinstituted the national State of Emergency first declared by George W. Bush on September 14, 2001 by placing the following language in the Federal Register.
 The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.
... and "we the people" are the terrorists as far as the elite in government are concerned.


Is it Science or Honesty that NIST Lacks?

The degree to which NIST has apparently tried to hide the 8 stories of free fall drop can be seen in the care taken to hide it on the NIST WTC webpage[2]. On that webpage, among items pertaining to WTC7, the link to the press release for the final report is listed first. This press release[3] lists a number of changes between the final report, and the draft final report issued earlier for public comments. Surprisingly, or maybe dishonestly would be a better choice of word, free fall is not even mentioned.


Oct 22, Richard Gage, AIA, will speak to Sacramento Chapter, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

On October 22, Richard Gage, AIA, will speak to the Sacramento Chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). This will be a very important event, being the first time the evidence for controlled demolition at the World Trade Center will be presented to an audience of aerospace professionals. The title of Mr. Gage's talk is "Analysis of WTC Failure Modes." The event will be held at the California Aerospace Museum at McClellan, CA. (Photo is the large display of the museum's logo at the entrance to the museum grounds.) Dinner begins at 6:30 p.m., with the talk at 7:00 p.m. Call 916-643-3192 for information.


Here's an oldie but goodie ...
Tommy Chong_on the Alex Jones Show:9/11 was an inside job p1

[youtube]f2SLq08HMb4&feature=player_profilepage[/youtube]




An open letter to Justice Edward Lehner on denying 9/11 justice

After showing what, in retrospect, seems to have been perhaps a feigned interest in weighing both sides arguments in the hearing, your somewhat short decision gives no indication that you seriously considered the petitioners memorandum of law or the will of the people it represented. You did not acknowledge the need for a new investigation, knowing full well New York City has never had, in any way, shape or form, its own independent investigation of the events of that awful day, that catastrophic day, on which the greatest crime on American soil was committed, right here in New York City, in fact not far from your courtroom.
Moreover, your rejection of the ballot initiative in effect agrees with and supports the City of New Yorks callous dismissal of this investigation request as irrelevant. Irrelevant to what: the interests of the victims families and their quest for answers and justice; the citizenry as a wholes interest in who and how a massive US intelligence organization, the militarys NORAD system, the multiple warnings from nations around the world to the Oval Office of a precipitous event like 9/11 were about to occur? All were ignored, dismissed, and somehow everyone was found asleep at the wheel in New York City and Washington, D.C., when and where the principal damage occurred.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/russia-today-new-911-inquiryRussia Today: New 9/11 inquiry squashed
*Webmaster commentary:*
we do not need a new 9-11 investigation. We know the government is lying and that is all we need to know. Now we must decide what to do about it.
Everything else is just window-dressing.


----------



## NorthwestBuds (Oct 16, 2009)

GR you need to put the crack pipe down and step away from your computer. You come off like a raving maniac here. Now you are hysterically claiming people want a real investigation and using Tommy Chong as your proof?


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

ok we'll go this route. first if the FBI,CIA, ect ect ect. can not git accurate in-tell we do not need them. second we should not be in this war, plain and simple. we should have went over and bombed who ever was involved and been over and done with it. now we are just saving face and getting innocent kids killed, so someone can make a fortune off of it. was it a good plan yes but i say they had help with it from someone here in the US.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

CLINTON INTEL....keep it straight.

You can't pick ur wars... who told you you could.. You go where you have the advantage. We had every LEGAL right to hit Saddam 50 times over. he broke so many parts of his peace agreement after desert storm.... ppl were wondering why Clinton allowed our pilots to receive fire from Saddam at all!!?? That right there was a LEGAL trigger to go in.... Clinton simply wavered....like he did on every foreign policy issue. 
Again, telegraphing weakness to dictators and despots NEVER WORKS!

We are doing it again.... when the arabs see these nut job Truthers saying Al Queda didn't do it.... they think we're getting soft in the head. they may be right.

This is exactly the kind of candy arse attitude which brought on 9/11.

We have a candy arse in the white house right now!

We will pay.... mark my words. You can't wish ur enemies away, and you can't buy them off.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

i can see you truly dislike clinton but it goes beyond him. i don't care if it was al-queda or not even though i think it was. we are doing nothing more then playing game and have been for the last five or six years now.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 16, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The wing would do whatever the physics of any particular crash dictate. How many planes do you know which have flown into large skyscrapers at over 500 mph?



if you want to incorporate speed into this, it completely invalidates the pentagon plane crash, as the turn he made before crashing into the pentagon at the speed he was going is impossible



however, if you take the word speed out of your question, we are left with this


http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm



B-52 Bomber crashes into the empire state building


BUT IT DID NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO COLLAPSING









Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, he plunged through the 34th Street side of the building wreaking havoc. The major portion of the wreckage penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. Parts of the motor and landing gear tore through the entire building landing on top of a 13-story ediface across the street and igniting a second conflagration.
With legs held down by two newsmen, photographer Ernie Sisto crawled out on a harrowing ledge and took the historic photo. It ran on page oneof the New York Times.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 16, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> CLINTON INTEL....keep it straight.
> 
> You can't pick ur wars... who told you you could.. You go where you have the advantage. We had every LEGAL right to hit Saddam 50 times over. he broke so many parts of his peace agreement after desert storm.... ppl were wondering why Clinton allowed our pilots to receive fire from Saddam at all!!?? That right there was a LEGAL trigger to go in.... Clinton simply wavered....like he did on every foreign policy issue.
> Again, telegraphing weakness to dictators and despots NEVER WORKS!
> ...




who put saddam into his position of power?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

Keenly... ur out of ur depth.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 16, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Keenly... ur out of ur depth.


no keen pays attention and takes notes when necessary.........and dont believe everything that is told to him.


CJ you dont even care about 911...FACT , so why do you keep posting dumb shit ? Rick makes a post and you agree......nothing more , nothing less... you just agree . At least rick trys to do his own research on the topic .... you have done NONE. All you have is clinton and how bad he was..... Thats old this is CURRENT!


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 16, 2009)

so tell me rick.....cj, tell me what you think will happen if we pull EVERY single troop out and just call it as we "lost"? Do you really think "we will pay" you really think they will think we are "weak" and just come and pull off another 9/11? Did you see how happy al quada was when they ran the U.S out of a place they were getting ready to leave anyways? THAT was a victory to them, so if we just leave them alone do you think they will have giant victory party and blow us all up.........or just pull another 911? you are the ones who are "weak".. its obvious you believe everything the news tell you. And it is VERY obvious that obama has NO intentions of "pulling out" or even reducing troop numbers so why call him "weak" ? If bush or clinton were faced with the decision of putting 40,000 more troops in gani , then they would do the same............excactly what they are told to do. The general says we need 40,000 more and the democrats dont want anymore , so just meet in the middle and send 20,000 more. Thats just what they do, If you think the president fights these wars and makes all the decisions then you are just plain ignorant. and CJ if you think they attacked the US *just* becuase clinton was "weak" then you are the most ignorant. You have a lot of hatred in you cj ...eh ? I dont _hate _anyone so thats WHY my opinion will outlast yours all day.
i dont need any comments with hatred in them , just a plain answer...or a fuck you will be fine too


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> who put saddam into his position of power?



THE US ... thats a fact. i thought we all agreed on that one?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 16, 2009)

why didnt the empire state building even budge? It did *exactly *what the designers of the WTC said it would do , "its just like poking a pencil through a net" 

one more question... What is SO much different from the design to *handle the impact AND JET FUEL of a 707* and a actual 767 hitting the buildings? and IF you can show me the significant difference THEN explain why BOTH buildings fell ? And it just so happens a THIRD building fell in the EXACT same fashion?
you can watch controlled demo's all day long and you wont see "perfection" like that in ANY 3 in a row.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

So you think using the B-52 into the empire state building is some sort of damning evidence????// 

ur out of ur depth too.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 16, 2009)

i respond to a claim you make and thats the response you give?


your not even paying attention to whats going on anymore, just trolling every post and disagreeing with anything we say


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 16, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> now to get to the point yes you are right about getting rid of the fuel and such. however the wings would have separated at time of impact. even if they were full of fuel. witch makes it hard to believe about the extra fuel burning. *there was a big explosion at time of impact that carried through to the other side.* witch would have taken a lot of fuel. also the faster the plane is going the harder the impact the more pressure the plane has to endure.


(Separated wings or not aside, this just brings me back to the same thing RE: the repeated claims that the fuel wasn't enough to bring down the towers.) The fact is that the planes were *bombs*, pure and simple. Doesn't matter how much fuel was burned on impact, or how much was able to spread throughout the buildings. The gigantic *bombs* exploded in these buildings, which caused tremendous fires, which rapidly spread, which led to destruction of the buildings. What is so difficult to understand about this?!

Back to the wings, how do you *know* they would have separated? Further, the more speed at which something is traveling, the less time there would be for anything to be able to separate. (This makes sense to me, anyhow. I'm no physicist, and can't prove it. And I could be wrong. It simply makes sense.)



CrackerJax said:


> Did the terrorists KNOW that the towers would fall? Probably not.... but they knew the carnage and SYMBOLISM would be MASSIVE. The towers dropping was icing on the cake.... but not necessary.


I typed out a comment last night stating just this, but didn't bother posting it because I expected to be ordered to issue proof. 



maxamus1 said:


> now we are just saving face and getting innocent kids killed, so someone can make a fortune off of it.


*You mean like this?*

[youtube]JvkeXRXjYxk[/youtube]

CAPTION: "As we were en route, we tossed tootsie rolls, toys and water to kids running along side our vehicle. No matter where you go, no matter where you live, kids are still kids."


[youtube]VqHqLinyv_4[/youtube]

CAPTION: "tossed these little girl some bottled water after giving them some munchies "


[youtube]5kLDdXkpjkI[/youtube]

CAPTION: "While waiting to leave the post on a convoy mission, we tossed some munchies to two young Iraqi girls outside the fence."



Keenly said:


> Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, he plunged through the 34th Street side of the building wreaking havoc. The major portion of the wreckage penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. Parts of the motor and landing gear tore through the entire building landing on top of a 13-story ediface across the street and igniting a second conflagration.


You're seriously comparing a B-25 to a 747?!? And a fire in the basement to an inferno burning throughout an entire building?!?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i respond to a claim you make and thats the response you give?
> 
> 
> your not even paying attention to whats going on anymore, just trolling every post and disagreeing with anything we say



I responded to your logic ... ur out of ur depth.

The B-52 is not even comparable. The structures of the WTT and the Empire state building aren't even close. Completely different technology and architecture/engineering.

Think it through a bit.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 16, 2009)

What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.

And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet. 

But really, why is this still going on? We have proved that there has been a thorough investigation. We have proved that every part of these arguments is BS. We have proved that all the sources posted by the truthers have zero credibility. At this point I fail to see how any reasonable person still can not see the forest for the trees.

All the so called evidence posted by the truthers comes from the same tiny group of nuts and they have all been discredited. Just because GR keeps shouting childish lies and posting bogus evidence doesn't mean there is truth to it. I DEMONSTRATED on no uncertain terms that everything GR posts is fake. This is proved by the fact that none of it is published in any credible journal. What more proof do you need?

I think if God himself came down from the heavens and told you it was not a conspiracy you guys would argue with him.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

Katatawnic you have taken some of my words wrong. so to start with i am talking about our troops dieing, our young children. about the fires i have posted about this in other threads if you want go and look if not oh-well. second. if the wings would have separated at time of impact it would have damaged the buildings differently. which would have some kind of impact on the way the buildings would have fell.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
what if he came down and said we were right, i am sure you would argue with him too.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 16, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> Katatawnic you have taken some of my words wrong. so to start with i am talking about our troops dieing, our young children. about the fires i have posted about this in other threads if you want go and look if not oh-well. second. if the wings would have separated at time of impact it would have damaged the buildings differently. which would have some kind of impact on the way the buildings would have fell.


Man come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have got to know that you are not qualified to make such an assumption. Do you really think you can use your intuition to reconstruct how the damage would have occurred? Does this really make sense to you? Does it really?

The way physics works (I have a physics background) is exactly this. An object in motion remains in motion until met by an opposing force of equal or greater value.

The wings had considerable mass and enough strength to hold the weigh of the plane and its passengers. Now if you consider that the wing is one big lever, you see that the base is quite strong.

The mass of the plane traveling very fast meets with the beams. Presumably the wings, which carry their own mass, wrapped around the beams much like a car around a telephone pole. The entire mass of he wings and a great deal of the plane's mass is transfered to the small contact area on the beams. The beams sheer as do the wings (presumably) but the sheered pieces keep moving and act like canon balls passing through the building and ripping off the fireproofing from large areas of the beams. At the same time copious amounts of fuel are dumped into the building igniting several floors.

The fire heats the beams until they have only a fraction of their normal strength. Also, because this particular design has long beams, the fire heats them unevenly and causes them to warp. This warping literally pulls the beams apart. his combined with the damage from the plane and the weakened steel causes the many floors above the wound to fall. Once this happens the momentum pancakes subsequent floors and the mass snowballs. What is so hard to understand?


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 16, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> Katatawnic you have taken some of my words wrong. so to start with i am talking about our troops dieing, our young children. about the fires i have posted about this in other threads if you want go and look if not oh-well. second. if the wings would have separated at time of impact it would have damaged the buildings differently. which would have some kind of impact on the way the buildings would have fell.


Then you should have said our soldiers. Many of whom, by the way, are far from kids. My fiance turned 41 while deployed to Iraq, and many of his comrades were also quite grown men. Those were his videos, BTW. He told me over the phone about all the kids they encountered while on their convoys and the food, water, toys, etc., they'd toss to them, and I asked him to record whatever he could.

Just because I don't reply to every post doesn't mean I haven't read these long, exhaustive threads in their entirety. Most often I don't bother posting. The drama is quite unnecessary and unwanted, and I don't feel like getting drawn into it. I've gone through this argument more than enough with one of my sons, and he gets terribly pissed off that my mom and I refuse to discuss his conspiracy theories with him anymore... because we don't like drama and arguing. It's not worth it.



maxamus1 said:


> what if he came down and said we were right, i am sure you would argue with him too.


If God came down and said *anything* I'd believe she exists, and would certainly believe whatever she says.



RickWhite said:


> Do you really think you can use your intuition to reconstruct how the damage would have occurred? Does this really make sense to you? Does it really?
> 
> The way physics works (I have a physics background) is exactly this. An object in motion remains in motion until met by an opposing force of equal or greater value.
> 
> What is so hard to understand?


Apparently it is.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 16, 2009)

i was going to bed before i read this. rick you proved my point. read what you wrote and apply it to what i have wrote over and over again.also do you believe you are qulified to make such an asumption? what makes you beter than me? to katatawnic their are a lot of young kids in this war. you are upset with me because you took what i wrote the wrong way. because your fiance is older you forget about our young men and women, and yes their is a lot of them in the military. as far as god being a he or she i don't care. i am sure there are many ppl on here that will argue that with you, but i will not. lastly, he wrote (what is so hard to understand ?) not is that so hard to understand. slow down a lil bit before you post.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

He understands physics for one thing.... you obviously do not. The buildings beam are static. The plane is coming in at 500 mph...... what do you think happens? It isn't a roadrunner / wiley coyote cartoon. Those wings were coming in fast and HEAVY. What do you think is coming out the other side of the buildings? that's the momentum pushing debris , people and plane. 500 mph is awfully fast. You have no idea.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 16, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> (Separated wings or not aside, this just brings me back to the same thing RE: the repeated claims that the fuel wasn't enough to bring down the towers.) The fact is that the planes were *bombs*, pure and simple. Doesn't matter how much fuel was burned on impact, or how much was able to spread throughout the buildings. The gigantic *bombs* exploded in these buildings, which caused tremendous fires, which rapidly spread, which led to destruction of the buildings. What is so difficult to understand about this?!
> 
> Back to the wings, how do you *know* they would have separated? Further, the more speed at which something is traveling, the less time there would be for anything to be able to separate. (This makes sense to me, anyhow. I'm no physicist, and can't prove it. And I could be wrong. It simply makes sense.)
> 
> ...



I take issue with your whole post. First of all the plane is not a BOMB, its more like a big Molotov cocktail. Since there is no pressurized fuel you have no explosion all you have is burning fuel splattered everywhere. To say it is the same as a bomb means that you haven't any actual experience with bombs or fuel fires, nor a good grasp of the physical principles involved with flames and explosives.

Your right when you said your no physicist, by your logic a bullet could never penetrate anything because it is moving so fast the object cannot separate or get out of the way. FWIW 600 MPH is not fast at all, the space shuttle flies at over 10,000 MPH getting into the upper atmosphere of earth. By your logic the craft would explode due to the air molecules not being able to get out of the way. It makes no sense at all, how you can claim it does is beyond me.

No one is saying that soldiers are running around gunning down children in the street. What they are referring to is the bombing of buildings where these children are either inside or nearby. Of course they claim that Al quaeda and the Taliban plant those children there and hide behind them, but I don't believe that, children are sacred to Muslims.

Im not sure if you figured this out yet or not, but there was no inferno in the buildings, the fires were localized to less than 10% of the building, hardly an inferno. There have been many pictures posted of real infernos, where the whole building is entirely consumed and burned for DAYS and yet still they do not fall. Your towers burned for less than 90 minutes and completely collapsed every section into pieces and fell into its own footprint. A building that was only marginally hit by falling debris and had less than 1% of the building on fire also just collapsed, also a steel building. Yet a building that had the whole of tower #2 fall upon it had 19 intact floors, with pictures still hanging on the walls in the lobby. Too many "Perfect Storm" Coincidences for me.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 16, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I responded to your logic ... ur out of ur depth.
> 
> The B-52 is not even comparable. The structures of the WTT and the Empire state building aren't even close. Completely different technology and architecture/engineering.
> 
> Think it through a bit.



But yet many of you claim that a burning fuel truck and a bridge are the perfect evidence of your melt and collapse theory. Im afraid the Empire State Building and a B-52 bomber have far far more in common with the WTC towers than a bridge and a truck.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.


Straw Man argument.



> And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet.


Not even close, if you break something up you have already lessened it's impact because you have slowed its speed a considerable amount. A BB traveling at the speed of light would NOT disintegrate the planet, your way way out there buddy. LOL I would LOVE to see you prove that one without making yourself look like a fool. 



> But really, why is this still going on? We have proved that there has been a thorough investigation. We have proved that every part of these arguments is BS. We have proved that all the sources posted by the truthers have zero credibility. At this point I fail to see how any reasonable person still can not see the forest for the trees.


You haven't proven anything Ricky, all you've done is argue with no evidence and no proof of anything. Just because you say it is so does not make it so. The evidence speaks for itself, you do not.



> All the so called evidence posted by the truthers comes from the same tiny group of nuts and they have all been discredited. Just because GR keeps shouting childish lies and posting bogus evidence doesn't mean there is truth to it. I DEMONSTRATED on no uncertain terms that everything GR posts is fake. This is proved by the fact that none of it is published in any credible journal. What more proof do you need?
> 
> I think if God himself came down from the heavens and told you it was not a conspiracy you guys would argue with him.


The truth movement is not "Tiny" for every Truther out there there are 10 more silent ones sitting at home.

If god himself came down then I would believe whatever he told me, but since that will NEVER happen I am safe to voice my opinions and evidence as I see fit, regardless of whether you think it has merit or not. FWIW I doubt the boiling of water is in any journal, yet we don't say that boiling water is fake do we? And if the criteria is that in order for anything to be real it must be published in a scientific journal then i guess we can get rid of all religions now can't we and God and All sorts of things.

Smoke em if you got em!


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> The way physics works (I have a physics background) is exactly this.



You do *NOT* have a Physics background and it is apparent. Besides its just a logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Just because you took Physical Science in High School does not qualify you.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 16, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> But yet many of you claim that a burning fuel truck and a bridge are the perfect evidence of your melt and collapse theory. Im afraid the Empire State Building and a B-52 bomber have far far more in common with the WTC towers than a bridge and a truck.


No, even using UR analogy of the fuel truck and bridge is closer to the empire state and WTT.

High temps caused the beams to become brittle. Not unlike fuel truck and bridge beams.

The B-52 is pitifully small compared to the Empire state building and was carrying a fraction of fuel compared to the two jets on 9/11. It was also going much much slower.

One need only use a small bit of common sense to see that the aircraft were fully capable of taking down the towers. 

Only the most unpatriotic and mistrusting of fringe elements will EVER believe something as CONVOLUTED as the 9/11 truthers theory.

Occams razor always reveals the truth. 9/11 conspiracy fails that test miserably.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2009)

[youtube]xp9852hq0W0[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 17, 2009)

Man, ur not kidding....


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> High temps caused the beams to become brittle. Not unlike fuel truck and bridge beams.


So now the fire made them brittle? I thought you all said that the fires melted or otherwise caused the steel to lose its rigidity and thats whqat caused all the floors below to do the same thing. Now its brittle steel eh? Can you at least keep your story straight. 



> The B-52 is pitifully small compared to the Empire state building and was carrying a fraction of fuel compared to the two jets on 9/11. It was also going much much slower.
> 
> One need only use a small bit of common sense to see that the aircraft were fully capable of taking down the towers.


The planes that crashed into the towers were also pitifully small compared to the building. At least the B-52 had AVGAS in it, probably 100 octane points above jet fuel which makes the fuel much much more volatile. 



> Only the most unpatriotic and mistrusting of fringe elements will EVER believe something as CONVOLUTED as the 9/11 truthers theory.
> 
> Occams razor always reveals the truth. 9/11 conspiracy fails that test miserably.


Occam's razor is not a theory of absolutes as you state it is, it is a guideline.

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"*If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along*"
"*The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations.*"
"*If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest.*"
"*The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.*"
. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"*Keep things simple!*"


No where does it say that the simplest explanation is always 100% correct, rather that it is usually the case.

And calling anyone who believes in the 911 conspiracy as unpatriotic really burns my ass. I have been fired upon by foreign combatants, you can't say the same, Im more patriotic than you are.


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 17, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> to katatawnic their are a lot of young kids in this war. you are upset with me because you took what i wrote the wrong way. because your fiance is older you forget about our young men and women, and yes their is a lot of them in the military. as far as god being a he or she i don't care. i am sure there are many ppl on here that will argue that with you, but i will not. lastly, he wrote (what is so hard to understand ?) not is that so hard to understand. slow down a lil bit before you post.


You're assuming I was upset, not to mention why I may have been upset. Responding does not equate being upset. If it did, then I could tell you that you're "just upset" each time you respond to a post.

When one says "innocent kids are being killed" then later comes back and says, "I meant our soldiers," most others will consider that back peddling. Had you clarified "our young soldiers" in your initial assertion, the chances of others taking what you said the wrong way would have greatly diminished. I read the words in front of me, not between the lines or what they *might* have meant.

Stating that I'm "forgetting" our young soldiers is also a tremendous assumption. I didn't say, nor imply, that "all" or even "most" of our soldiers are more mature. I said that many are. Twist words much?

My referring to God as a "she" was just me being facetious. Lighten up. That's what I was doing. 

As far as slowing down before I post... practice what you preach. Had you done so, perhaps you wouldn't have told me what I'm feeling and why, but instead would have read what I said without exaggerating and twisting it. What "upsets" me is others telling me what I think and feel. I am the *only* authority on that subject.

Portraying our soldiers (young or old) as victims ("innocent kids" were your exact words) is quite a stretch. Everyone in the military either has been in since before these wars began and have voluntarily reenlisted, or else they have voluntarily enlisted after the fact. Anyone enlisting in the military knows that the chances of going to one of these wars at least once are quite high. Yet they still choose to enlist. If there were an active draft, this would be entirely different. BTW, I personally know several soldiers who not only have been deployed to the Middle East more than once, but volunteered to go rather than receiving orders. The *only* reason my fiance hasn't and won't volunteer to go again is because he's sworn to me that he'll never volunteer to go to war, because of what it does to me.



NoDrama said:


> I take issue with your whole post. First of all the plane is not a BOMB, its more like a big Molotov cocktail. Since there is no pressurized fuel you have no explosion all you have is burning fuel splattered everywhere. To say it is the same as a bomb means that you haven't any actual experience with bombs or fuel fires, nor a good grasp of the physical principles involved with flames and explosives.


*Molotov cocktail:* a crude bomb made of a bottle filled with a flammable liquid (as gasoline) and usually fitted with a wick (as a saturated rag) that is ignited just before the bottle is hurled

Interesting. It's defined as a "crude" bomb. 

Planes crashed into the buildings and went BOOM. What does a bomb do? Go POOF?  So what we saw that morning, and what the videos show to this day, of the planes' impacts weren't explosions? Granted, I should have said they were *like* bombs. However, I don't see you picking apart the atrocious grammar of those with whom you agree, nor their weak analogies. 



> Your right when you said your no physicist, by your logic a bullet could never penetrate anything because it is moving so fast the object cannot separate or get out of the way. FWIW 600 MPH is not fast at all, the space shuttle flies at over 10,000 MPH getting into the upper atmosphere of earth. By your logic the craft would explode due to the air molecules not being able to get out of the way. It makes no sense at all, how you can claim it does is beyond me.


I did not once say "cannot" separate. I conjectured as to possibly why the planes' wings didn't separate immediately upon impact. Further, "penetrate" and "separate" are completely different, as you fully know. Of course the planes, and the wings, penetrated the buildings. This is a no-brainer. My "logic" was quite flawed RE: the what little explanation I could give RE: speed and the separation of wings (or anything else), which I pretty much said by stating that I could be wrong. I made it clear I was only conjecturing. 

Your entire "by your logic" diatribe was a straw man. Don't call 'em if you're gonna make 'em. (See my "straw man" comment below.)



> No one is saying that soldiers are running around gunning down children in the street. What they are referring to is the bombing of buildings where these children are either inside or nearby. Of course they claim that Al quaeda and the Taliban plant those children there and hide behind them, but I don't believe that, children are sacred to Muslims.


I take it you haven't been deployed to Iraq, have you? You've no idea what they do and don't use as shields. Muslims also hold Mosques sacred, yet they hide in them knowing that we respect that sacredness and bank on us not bombing or otherwise coming after them. 



RickWhite said:


> What the hell does one accident have to do with another? We have car crashes every day with vastly different results. If a guy gets into a horrible crash and walks away unharmed does that prove that it's impossible to die in a car crash? This is just foolish.





NoDrama said:


> Straw Man argument.


I see, so you guys show a completely different incident to "prove" your argument, but when someone else asks if one incident negates others like it, it's a straw man. I laugh at all the "straw man" retorts, because most often when one makes said accusation, one follows with a straw man of one's own.



> Just because you say it is so does not make it so. The evidence speaks for itself, you do not.


Funny, that's what we say, as well.



> If god himself came down then I would believe whatever he told me, but since that will NEVER happen I am safe to voice my opinions and evidence as I see fit, regardless of whether you think it has merit or not.


Pot, meet Kettle. I rest my case.



> FWIW I doubt the boiling of water is in any journal, yet we don't say that boiling water is fake do we? And if the criteria is that in order for anything to be real it must be published in a scientific journal then i guess we can get rid of all religions now can't we and God and All sorts of things.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/11/1/103/
I can't access the journal, as I'm not a paying member of IOP and I'm not going to purchase the sucker.  But it exists.



This is exactly what I meant earlier about not bothering to post or discuss these things often due to needless drama and arguing. Twisting someone's words, telling others what they think and feel, pointing out to others that their "logic is flawed" when they stated themselves that they don't know what they're talking about and made it clear they're only conjecturing, etc., is nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing. Unnecessary drama. Further, these tactics are nothing more than deflecting.

Not to mention, in my attempt to address these ad hominems, my multi-quoting post now appears much like GrowRebel's posts. Which I now rarely bother reading. "Too bad, so sad" has gotten a bit old.

I'll go back to lurking for a while, perhaps making a joking remark here and there. I've been reading this thread for entertainment, not to argue. I've got a family and a partner if I want to have arguments.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 17, 2009)

NoDrama, I took two semesters of major level college physics. You on the other hand clearly don't understand physics or chemistry and you are saying things that just are not true.

The analogy I gave about the results of one accident not having to match that of another is a good one. Looking at the issue objectively for a change. You see that the Empire state building not falling proves nothing. Just because every building hit by a plane doesn't fall, in no way proves that it isn't possible. It is possible that 99 buildings are hit and don't fall and then the 100th could be the one that falls - the 99 prove nothing, the 100th proves everything.

On the other hand, if a single steel structure does fall as a result of fire, it proves that it is possible for this to happen. Two freeway overpass' that I know of have come down for no other reason than heat. This proves that fire does cause substantial weakening of steel and that it is enough to bring down some very, very strong structures. That is why beams in buildings have fireproofing on them - n the WTC this was ripped off.

My Quote:

"And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet." 

Your response:

_"Not even close, if you break something up you have already lessened it's impact because you have slowed its speed a considerable amount."_

Here is a statement that proves you don't know the first thing about physics.

Clearly, you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass. If you have a given object with a given momentum and you reduce that object's momentum the energy has to go somewhere. In this case we clearly have reduced the momentum of the objects and this energy was transfered into the beams - mass however remains the same. If you take the total energy of the moving plane and you subtract the opposing force of the beams you still have some net momentum and you still have the same mass. What you see coming out of the other side of the building is the net momentum of the plane debris.

It is also important to know that engineers have calculated the heat produced solely from the energy that is transfered from the plane into the building. They calculated massive amounts of heat just from the impact - this is sans jet fuel.

Now as for what I have or have not proved: Did you see my posts in which I blew the whistle on the sources of all the alleged "research" that you guys keep citing? Let me explain again what I found. The writings you guys keep referring to as proof all trace back to a small group of people centered around a single discredited professor. Now one thing you need to know is that there is a fairly rigorous academic standard when it comes to submitting research to the academic & scientific community.

How this works is that you first conduct research according to stringent academic guidelines. You then write up your research in a way that likewise follows academic guidelines. Once you are confident in your work you submit your work to a well respected journal. One you do that, the work is reviewed by the editors of the journal and they determine if the work is up to par. If they do decide it is worthy of publication, the work is then published and submitted for peer review. In peer review, other experts scrutinize your methods and your conclusions and either agree or disagree with your findings. The validity of your finding is determined by this last step. Of course in the future others may produce contrary research. This is the process that is endorsed by all of academia and the scientific community.

The reason I can say that the 911 conspiracy info lacks credibility is because none of it has gone through this process. Instead, what the authors have done, is produce papers that look legitimate, bypass the whole academic process and essentially just post them on line as fact. In order to fraudulently add an air of legitimacy, the authors have posted their findings in pseudo-academic, open source, internet "journals" and have even created their own expressly for this purpose.

Nothing could be less scientific than producing your own "journal" in order to promote your alleged scientific findings. To do so is monumentally absurd and clearly demonstrates that the author is a fraud. Not only does it demonstrate fraud, it also demonstrates a clear and obvious intent to convince others of you fraudulent work.

The bottom line is that the authors of this BS can not even manage to get published in a single respected journal and they certainly would never pass peer review because the lion's share of the scientific community disagree with their findings. Plus, when someone manufactures their own on line journal, posts their findings and calls upon the general public to conduct peer review, even the most uninformed among us has to see that it doesn't pass the smell test.

Really, at this point I think it is clear that you guys have argued yourself into a corner and you are arguing as a matter of pride.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 17, 2009)

Rick, you are not going to be invited to the secret kewl meetings anymore if you don't stop. 

GR's mom is making cookies for the next meeting.....so u'd be the big loser. Cookies and conspiracy.....what more do you want out of life?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 17, 2009)

i hope everyone is Ok. 



[youtube]_BtMuSjnGcY[/youtube]


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 17, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> NoDrama, I took two semesters of major level college physics. You on the other hand clearly don't understand physics or chemistry and you are saying things that just are not true.
> 
> The analogy I gave about the results of one accident not having to match that of another is a good one. Looking at the issue objectively for a change. You see that the Empire state building not falling proves nothing. Just because every building hit by a plane doesn't fall, in no way proves that it isn't possible. It is possible that 99 buildings are hit and don't fall and then the 100th could be the one that falls - the 99 prove nothing, the 100th proves everything.
> 
> ...


Well thought out rebuttal, I applaud you Rick. There was no name calling or rude remarks made, FDD must be very proud.

IMO the reason Truthers don't get published in the mainstream journals is because that journal would be harassed and discredited by the very same people the article is about. Your taking on the establishment with this theory, its an uphill battle no matter what. The cards are all stacked against us, even if the majority of the world believes that 911 was in inside job/conspiracy/demolition/what have you that does not necessarily mean that the government is going to come right out and tell us the truth. I mean shit they still keep secrets that are 80 years old for crissakes, WHY? what could possibly have happened 80 years ago that would affect America now? UNLESS it was our own government involved with things they had so vehemently denied.

Its hard to go against the Status Quo and we can agree on 99% of everything else we would probably discuss, economics, business, weed etc etc etc. As you have probably seen from other subjects CJ, yourself and other non truthers we can all get along because for the most part we have the same belief system. Really the only difference being this whole 911 thing and trust in the government as a whole.


FWIW your whole physics analogy is not very good, Although I agree your not changing the mass of anything, but in order for their to be force you must have acceleration as force = mass x acceleration AKA Newtons Second law. If you reduce the acceleration you also reduce the force. Can't argue with that one.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 17, 2009)

you must incorporate historical events into the thought process when speaking of potentially horrific government sponsored terror


it has happened time and time again




just this time, they are really good at placing the blame elsewhere


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 17, 2009)

ur the one placing blame elsewhere. It's right in front of you.

One theory is ultra convoluted.... the other is not.

An indication for those with common sense and objective minds.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 18, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Well thought out rebuttal, I applaud you Rick. There was no name calling or rude remarks made, FDD must be very proud.
> 
> IMO the reason Truthers don't get published in the mainstream journals is because that journal would be harassed and discredited by the very same people the article is about. Your taking on the establishment with this theory, its an uphill battle no matter what. The cards are all stacked against us, even if the majority of the world believes that 911 was in inside job/conspiracy/demolition/what have you that does not necessarily mean that the government is going to come right out and tell us the truth. I mean shit they still keep secrets that are 80 years old for crissakes, WHY? what could possibly have happened 80 years ago that would affect America now? UNLESS it was our own government involved with things they had so vehemently denied.
> 
> ...


Truthers don't get published because their claims are outrageous and because publishing them would damage the integrity and reputation of the journal when they get creamed in peer review.

Really, have you ever seen the academic community excoriate anyone espousing an anti-Government viewpoint? You and I both know that only happens when people espouse Conservative viewpoints, not Leftists ones. If there was any truth to the truther claims, every Left wing rag in America including Time, NY Times, CNN and others would be tripping over themselves to publish the story. If there was any real evidence, it would be hugely beneficial for the journal that exposed it. Fact is, none of that stuff is legit and that's why it isn't published.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 18, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> One need only use a small bit of common sense to see that the aircraft were fully capable of taking down the towers.


No , one with ANY common sense sees that differently .... and we have told you several times, YOU have done , nor provided ANYTHING to this thread at all, 
you have yet to even respond to any of my questions ? why are you here ? 
i guess just to back up rick 



CrackerJax said:


> Only the most unpatriotic and mistrusting of fringe elements will EVER believe something as CONVOLUTED as the 9/11 truthers theory.


so now i am "unpatriotic" because i have questions , YOU cannot answer so i am still waiting for rick to respond.....


cj i have ran into some of your work on the "fun part" of the forum 
you really need to stick to that part of the forum


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 18, 2009)

Everyone loves to be right and prove others wrong.


----------



## Hayduke (Oct 18, 2009)

Hmmm...How did I miss this one


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

No .... the common sense theory is planes which everyone could see and FILMED caused the towers to come down.

You guys are the ones with the CRAZY theory..... make no mistake about that folks.... your theory has NO common sense in it at all.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 19, 2009)




----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

That actually would make more sense that the "truthers" FDD!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.defensereview.com/lasing-skulls-laser-weapons-finally-maturing-for-future-warfare-applications-meet-the-boeing-atl-advanced-tactical-laser-airborne-laser-weapon/




[youtube]qfmEUqmgsK4[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 19, 2009)

[youtube]Uei_wuV8n1U[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> http://www.defensereview.com/lasing-skulls-laser-weapons-finally-maturing-for-future-warfare-applications-meet-the-boeing-atl-advanced-tactical-laser-airborne-laser-weapon/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's been DEBUNKED by the truthers.... that's really just a guy with a torch under the hood.... It's really Dick Cheney under the hood!!


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> He understands physics for one thing.... you obviously do not. The buildings beam are static. The plane is coming in at 500 mph...... what do you think happens? It isn't a roadrunner / wiley coyote cartoon. Those wings were coming in fast and HEAVY. What do you think is coming out the other side of the buildings? that's the momentum pushing debris , people and plane. 500 mph is awfully fast. You have no idea.


 

cj man really. i never said that the debris would not continue in motion, i never said that that was not debris coming out the other side of the building. for you to say that he understands physics, and i do not is just an assumption by you. it does not make his hypotheses any better than mine.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 19, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> You're assuming I was upset, not to mention why I may have been upset. Responding does not equate being upset. If it did, then I could tell you that you're "just upset" each time you respond to a post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

they may knowingly sign up but they are still innocent. this war has nothing to do with the US. it has more to do with power and who has it, that is what makes them innocent.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

Yes it does.... ur hypothesis is so convoluted compared to his. His is SELF EVIDENT... (planes ...fast...heavy...uhhh boom). 

Yours is "OUT THERE" (secret ppl planted secret charges (tons of them) and conspired to have planes impact the towers so THEN they could blow the towers up)

That's ALL THE WAY out there....  Kind of why the Truthers are considered nutty.... rightfully so.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


>



I knew it! The mastermind:


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 19, 2009)

posted by katatawnic...... (Then you should have said our soldiers. Many of whom, by the way, are far from kids. My fiance turned 41 while deployed to Iraq, and many of his comrades were also quite grown men.) so do tell me how you did not imply most of our soldiers are not kids or children, also how did i twist what you wrote?


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 19, 2009)

see cj you keep confusing me with others. i have never said it was explosions, or demolition explosions. i have said a small team could have cut key supports ,and loosen key bolts that would have brought down the buildings. after being hit by the planes. you know what cj, your right we are crazy, we're just loonies. you do remember that when ppl thought the word was not flat or that the earth was not the center of the universe. that the ppl who believed it were crazy too.


----------



## poopmaster (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCg8Fp8aw8

During an interview on 9/11 with ABC News&#8217; Peter Jennings, then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani stated, &#8220;I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.&#8221;

So how did Rudy Giuliani know that WTC was going to collapse? The part of his interview I'm referring to is just after 1 minute 20 seconds. So he knew 10 minutes before the 1st tower collapsed. How? Why didn't he tell the fire fighters?

What about the former Prime Minister of Denmark (Poul Nyrup Rasmussen) who was told of the collapse before it happened?

&#8220;I am told that the first tower has completely collapsed&#8230;.I received a message 5-10 minutes before it physically happened saying there was impending danger the tower would collapse so I knew disaster was coming&#8221; said Rasmussen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b09NnCo_KIw

Then you have WTC7 that was reported collapsed before it did. I mean the list goes on and on and on and yet people here can 100% agree with the official story. LOL your Kool-Aid is strong.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> see cj you keep confusing me with others. i have never said it was explosions, or demolition explosions. i have said a small team could have cut key supports ,and loosen key bolts that would have brought down the buildings. after being hit by the planes. you know what cj, your right we are crazy, we're just loonies. you do remember that when ppl thought the word was not flat or that the earth was not the center of the universe. that the ppl who believed it were crazy too.


You can't just take one slice of the conspiracy pie.... you have to take it all, else you really don't have ANY position which is remotely defensible.

I encapsulated the 9/11 truther conspiracy for you... I left a lot out, but it ALL needs to be true for ur theory to survive.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

poopmaster said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCg8Fp8aw8
> 
> During an interview on 9/11 with ABC News Peter Jennings, then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani stated, I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.
> 
> ...


this is just one more person with questions. When are you guys gonna quit talkin theory's and just answer the fuckin questions.? (you skipped all of mine too?) 
and IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS then you are not helping your purpose at all. You dont know the answers plain and simple and I DONT EITHER (just to make that clear again) THATS WHY WE WANT ANOTHER INVESTIGATION. thats all.


cj , there is no need in even responding.
*_fire , planes, boom* _that just makes you look horrible , please move on to something you are better at.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 19, 2009)

i can choose what ever piece of the pie i want. i do not have to take the hole pie. i still say that the government had more to do with it then they say they did. which fall into conspiracy guidelines. i believe the had a hand in the collapse of the wtc's and pentagon. i am my own man and can stand behind my own belief's and do not need others to defend them. i am not part of a conspiracy group. i do not get info from other conspiracy belivers. i duscuss my belief's with others if they agree cool if not that's cool too.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> i can choose what ever piece of the pie i want. i do not have to take the hole pie. i still say that the government had more to do with it then they say they did. which fall into conspiracy guidelines. i believe the had a hand in the collapse of the wtc's and pentagon. i am my own man and can stand behind my own belief's and do not need others to defend them. i am not part of a conspiracy group. i do not get info from other conspiracy belivers. i duscuss my belief's with others if they agree cool if not that's cool too.



Well, you should start ur own thread then.... this thread is for 9/11 conspiracy "truthers" and "normal" ppl.

You are talking about something else entirely. You'll need to copy paste you tubes together so they will fit ur conclusion..... that's how conspiracy ppl like urself do it. give it a try.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> i am my own man and can stand behind my own belief's and do not need others to defend them. i am not part of a conspiracy group. i do not get info from other conspiracy belivers. i duscuss my belief's with others if they agree cool if not that's cool too.




me too 
but that makes us "conspiracy theorist" ? "nutts" ? "truthers" ? 
no i am my own person and do not believe every stupid little thing told to me and the official report is just plain ridiculous at best.

and there you guys go again with the "news aint reported it yet shit" YES THEY HAVE , but they will not cover stories like that everyday , "it will hurt them" you go back to all your clips of 911 and tell me the news did not report half the shit we are saying........... of course you cannot do that because you have NOTHING to offer at all . 
Now can you please answer the questions? if not then this is not the thread for you.....sorry.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Well, you should start ur own thread then.... this thread is for 9/11 conspiracy "truthers" and "normal" ppl.
> 
> You are talking about something else entirely. You'll need to copy paste you tubes together so they will fit ur conclusion..... that's how conspiracy ppl like urself do it. give it a try.



and he does it again.........


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

Now we are getting somewhere!!! You two have broken the link to the "whole" conspiracy and are now focusing on "sub plots" 
!!

Progress!!!


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Now we are getting somewhere!!! You two have broken the link to the "whole" conspiracy and are now focusing on "sub plots"
> !!
> 
> Progress!!!



and again.....


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

All true tho.... all true. Max has repeatedly backed away from the 9/11 conspiracy, but still has questions. 

The above is not a judgment, but an observation..... a correct one.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> All true tho.... all true. Max has repeatedly backed away from the 9/11 conspiracy, but still has questions.
> 
> The above is not a judgment, but an observation..... a correct one.




and again....
do you really need rick to answer the questions for you ? i know you can read, so whats the problem ........ scared to just admit you dont know the answers ?
c'mon i did it , its not that hard


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

Oh...Oky, you actually are confused about Guiliani having SECRET INFO on how he KNEW the towers were going to collapse...

Hang on.... I must do a bong hit as a salutation for your keen perceptive skills.

whew.... better.

How many reports do you think were coming in nonstop from firefighters, cops in the towers after the impacts? Let's just assume... LOTS. I can guarantee you that there were many reports saying the OBVIOUS.... the towers are going to collapse!!!! Duh!!

All Rudy is saying there is, the report estimates of WHEN the towers would collapse was OFF!! 

He's not implying that those reports were given or he had a report PRIOR to the planes impacts..... 

Ur really stretching for straws now.... that or you have no reading comprehension. Which is it?


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Oh...Oky, you actually are confused about Guiliani having SECRET INFO on how he KNEW the towers were going to collapse...
> 
> Hang on.... I must do a bong hit as a salutation for your keen perceptive skills.
> 
> ...



uh ...maybe because you have skipped every question in the thread...duh. now you might want to go back a few pages and READ or just walk away from this thread in which you have no business being in, if you cannot contribute.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

i ANSWERED THE MOST RECENT QUESTION... DIDN'T i? DIDN'T I ?

What's ur answer to it.... keep deflecting.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 19, 2009)

cj stop smoking you have fried to many cells. first i have not backed away from anything. stop and read before you post. do some brain exercises for memory, and remember who posted what. you have jumped back and forth on everything, from the fires did bring the buildings down to they did not. also every time someone post something you agree with all you do is agree and say yes yes yes. you go off what other ppl say or write. until you can think for yourself don't respond.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

barry jennings was on mainstream media , what was so hard to believe about his story? (oh he had no experience so he wasnt credible 
i guess jennings was a theorist too huh?

i'll give u some time this time.....


----------



## Keenly (Oct 19, 2009)

cracker your not really making sense on this one



your saying the rescue workers all knew it was going to collapse...

like some how its SOP and everyone knows when buildings are going to come down


its just bullshit


your not convincing anyone of anything, just arguing for the sake of trying to make others look bad



its really sad how you feel the need to alienate people you dont agree with


if you dont agree with it, then walk away

you stopped posting facts forever ago, and started harrassment and


"no your wrong"

why? "cause i, the almighty crackerjax said so"


if you dont like the message, walk away instead of being a constant troll



9/11 was an inside job, no matter how much you refuse to believe it, others always will

your not going to change their minds, at least not with the stuff your posting


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

You folks have the reading comprehension of gnats.... GNATS!!!

Max.... you already stated you didn't believe the ENTIRE conspiracy... so how am I wrong?

Whitey, I'm still waiting on the RUDY answer....keep deflecting. I already answered it...that's why you can't...  NEXT!!!

Keenly... ur nuts. You don't think that firefighters in NYC can tell when a building has HAD IT????

I see all of your problems are multiple, but the underlying factor is your own mental abilities to process info and place it into the correct context. 

I know you probably won't get what I'm saying since the problem is in a permanent loop.


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 19, 2009)

Hey everyone,

Click the button that says "Myrollitup" at the top of the screen (directly opposite the Login/Logout button), then scroll down and look for your ignore list in the "control panel" on the left-hand side of the screen. Got it? Okay, click on it. If you haven't already, add CrackerJax to the list and click OKAY.


 Congratulations! You've just done yourselves a HUGE favor.


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 19, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> yes i assuming by the way your post was written and constructed. it seemed that i ether upset you or offend you. also every time you post that post has some kind of felling behind it, whether good or bad.


I see... so just because I don't speak (nor type) in monotone, and actually express feelings in my words, that means I'm upset. Gotcha.  Some people simply speak with feeling. See, even when conversation is only via text, I have this "thing" about people talking like robots. Emotions are as ingrained in us as intellect and logic are. More so actually, as much as most of us would love to deny this... emotion comes naturally without thinking about it, whereas we need to consciously focus on logic in order to use it. (In a nutshell. lol) Our ability to use and express all of these is hugely what makes us human; what "separates" us from other animals.

*NOTE:* When I'm upset and/or offended, I explicitly say so and why. I don't pussyfoot nor sugar coat.

And on that note, your continuing to tell me what I think/feel is quite annoying. And yes, offensive. 



> they may knowingly sign up but they are still innocent. this war has nothing to do with the US. it has more to do with power and who has it, that is what makes them innocent.


Every war, past and present, has *everything* to do with power and who has it. This is new?  We never would have had a revolution and established the U.S. if there wasn't an issue about power and who had it. Same with all wars before and since, be they "just" or not. Freedom from power in the wrong hands (i.e., tyranny) is supposed to be important to us, last I heard. Freedom from being attacked by lunatics bent on killing others just because they don't agree with differing lifestyles is supposed to be a bad thing. Helping those who aren't in the capacity to help themselves is supposed to be a good thing.

If you encounter someone being bullied (beaten, raped, etc.) by someone else and unable to defend him/herself enough on his/her own, would you or would you not step in and try to help that person? If the fight has nothing to do with you, would you still not feel compelled to defend the underdog? You may be innocent in the initial situation, but your choosing to do what you feel is the right (or at least the best, given all choices) thing to do and involving yourself in it makes it have everything to do with you, in the end.

When horrible things happen in the world, whether they have anything to do with the U.S. or not, and we don't step in and do something about it, we are condemned for not helping those who aren't as strong as us. But when we do try to do something about it, we are bullies... if not outright evil. Hypocrisy abound.

I am never "for" war, but I am capable of understanding why it happens, the greedy side of power aside. I wholeheartedly wish that our species could and would find a better way to solve tremendous issues, in a peaceful way. Sadly, our species has yet to evolve past this, and undoubtedly won't during our lifetimes, if ever. All animals fight for power, dominance, territory, etc., in one way or another. We're not nearly as separated from other animals as we like to believe we are.

And just so you don't feel the need to make assumptions or put words in my mouth... yes, I am very passionate about these things, and no, I'm not upset with you for viewing it differently than I do. 



maxamus1 said:


> posted by katatawnic...... (Then you should have said our soldiers. Many of whom, by the way, are far from kids. My fiance turned 41 while deployed to Iraq, and many of his comrades were also quite grown men.)
> 
> so do tell me how you did not imply most of our soldiers are not kids or children, also how did i twist what you wrote?


You're still doing The Twist, Chuck. (As in Berry.) You just quoted me saying "many" and then you turned right around and insisted that I said "most" soldiers are not kids. I not only didn't say it, but I also didn't imply it.

Now, we can keep arguing semantics that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, or we can agree that we disagree and attempt to focus on the topic. The ball's in your court.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

Lib's have been shell shocked morally ever since sending millions of asians to their deaths in the 70's.


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Oh...Oky, you actually are confused about Guiliani having SECRET INFO on how he KNEW the towers were going to collapse...




no i said NOTHING about rudy, 10 min. dont mean shit to me. So i'll give you ONE thing an that is that you responded to SOMETHING.......... although you might want to READ and quit avoiding , hell i gave you plenty of time. Are you still waiting on rick?

DO I NEED TO REPOST ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE ALL OVER AGAIN? 

you only stick to simple, easy to handle situations (like a kid) You keep avoiding huge questions and try to let rick do all the work ......except he cannot answer either so , of course we are gonna keep wanting an investigation. get that through your thick , childish head


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

All of the conspiracy drivel has been posted already by me... I'm not going to keep repeating myself... 

You are the one with outlandish claims.... and ur proof is all hypothetical...u don't have a SINGLE piece of hard evidence.... of ANYTHING.

I notice you still haven't answered the Rudy Post...


----------



## wyteboi (Oct 19, 2009)

use google , you can find out about rudy.....? I do not know anything about that guys investigation of rudy .That was not my post , the simple questions *I* asked if you READ were never answered and never will be in this thread but thats why we are here. So *that *is why i and thousands of others demand a real investigation. thats the bottom line


----------



## dub007 (Oct 19, 2009)

So 95% of all Americans don't think that the gov't had anything to do with 9/11.... Well then 95% of Americans are complete retards!!!!


I don't care if 99% of people agreed..... They are all wrong and believing a LIE!!


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 19, 2009)

dub007 said:


> So 95% of all Americans don't think that the gov't had anything to do with 9/11.... Well then 95% of Americans are complete retards!!!!
> 
> 
> I don't care if 99% of people agreed..... They are all wrong and believing a LIE!!



More like 60% don't believe the conspiracy. 30-40% believe it was an inside job.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1475.cfm


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 19, 2009)

What does Guiliani's statement have to do with anything? So someone speculated that the buildings would collapse, so what? I'm sure there were dozens of people making such speculations. If someone says the Red Wings are going to win the cup and they do does that prove a conspiracy?

As for the BBC interview, it seemed apparent to me that the reporter was referring to the collapse of WTC tower 1 or 2 and was mistakenly using the name of building 7. Seems like a reasonable mistake. It also seems silly to point to a simple mistake as evidence of a conspiracy. I guess that's just that normal brain of mine thinking normal thoughts.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

There simply is no PROOF to any of the truthers hypothesis.... where's the beef?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 19, 2009)

There's no proof in your eyes CJ, but there is Proof. I mean after all they DID find nano thermite in the debris and dust from multiple locations. If an aircraft can hit a building so hard that 5 ton pieces of Titanium and Stainless Steel are vaporized yet pieces of every single person on the plane were found. on and on and on I could go, but Im not going to repeat 200 pages of what has already been posted. Even in the commercial there was a Beef patty, it was just smaller than Wendy's.


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 19, 2009)

So very sorry to go OT, but I just can't help myself... No Drama, is your sig quoting someone, and if so, where is the post?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)




----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 19, 2009)

I'm sure this has been posted... but this has always astonished me.

Who can't remember what they were doing on 9/11??

[youtube]Sm73wOuPL60[/youtube]

More lies.
[youtube]g6KbUpGNBts[/youtube]

EDIT:

I just don't know how someone can't question this event...


----------



## dub007 (Oct 19, 2009)

Well likewise the gov't doesn't give any hard proof either. The 9/11 Commission report was written like a fairy tale, and doesn't even mention the Solomon Building imploding. Bin Laden isn't even wasn't for the 9/11 attacks by the FBI.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

Except the govt's investigation confirms what everyone saw and experienced.... truthers does not. Kind of why it's a fringe issue..... ever see it being talked about much besides on the internet? Not much at all.... it's been deemed a "nut" issue.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 19, 2009)

it's like arguing god exists. 


prove he doesn't.


----------



## Big P (Oct 19, 2009)

who's god?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 19, 2009)

[youtube]bJJHSsLhE24[/youtube]


----------



## Katatawnic (Oct 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> it's like arguing god exists.
> 
> prove he doesn't.


Prove he does...


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 19, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> So very sorry to go OT, but I just can't help myself... No Drama, is your sig quoting someone, and if so, where is the post?


Its from this..http://www.geekologie.com/2007/10/light_up_chair_is_a_chair_with.php

I had to edit it so it would fit into 3 lines, and make it small.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 19, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> it's like arguing god exists.
> 
> 
> prove he doesn't.


God has never once cured a Amputee. Ever see anyone with no legs grow them back? A Miracle? Nope never seen it, it has never happened.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 19, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> God has never once cured a Amputee. Ever see anyone with no legs grow them back? A Miracle? Nope never seen it, it has never happened.



god is NOT a lizard. 


[youtube]UFwf7gRiLYM[/youtube]


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Oct 20, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> god is NOT a lizard.
> 
> 
> [youtube]UFwf7gRiLYM[/youtube]


 I never get tired of this video


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 20, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> Now, we can keep arguing semantics that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, or we can agree that we disagree and attempt to focus on the topic. The ball's in your court.


 

very much agreed, looking forward to reading your future post.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 20, 2009)

cj because i don't believe the hole thing i am backing away? i have said before the government has more to do with it then they say they do. i still believe the had a hand in the collapse of the wtc's, i still believe this is a false war. what else do want from me cj? by your standards if you believe the government had anything to do with 9/11 you are a truther, now you are saying you have to believe all of it. which is it cj?


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 20, 2009)

wyteboi glad to see i am not the only one. because we present another side to the story we are only half truthers i guess.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

Yes exactly.... 9/11 truthers have a POLITICAL axe to grind...... it makes the idea of objectivity a joke!! The only science in 9/11 truthers is left wing political science..... soft and hypocritical.


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 20, 2009)

hmmmmmm funny i am an independent. so wheres my axe at.


----------



## Big P (Oct 20, 2009)

maybe your an independent liberal, i see lots fo those


I wouldnt wanna be piled in with that bunch either


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

It is the rabid believers in 9/11 who are the true fringe liberal element. The try and USE pseudo science to prove a political point, regardless of the harm their beliefs truly cause society.


----------



## Big P (Oct 20, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It is the rabid believers in 9/11 who are the true fringe liberal element. The try and USE pseudo science to prove a political point, regardless of the harm their beliefs truly cause society.


 

very selfish of them I think if I had lost a brother on 9/11 and I had somone spewing this shit in my face I would have to start swingin


----------



## maxamus1 (Oct 20, 2009)

Big P said:


> maybe your an independent liberal, i see lots fo those
> 
> 
> I wouldnt wanna be piled in with that bunch either


 
i am just an independent. if i hear something and i agree, thats what i will go with.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 20, 2009)

any word on an investigation yet?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

Fdd.....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 20, 2009)

thread start date - * 02-04-2008, 08:59 AM*


what has changed since page 1? 

anything?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

just GR's blood pressure.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 20, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> just GR's blood pressure.


i'm digging the commitment, but there comes a time, ... 


[youtube]k8x5a3j3ur4[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

Heh... he can't.... thus the problem with rabbit hole thinking....eventually you can't turn around...you must proceed till ur stuck.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 20, 2009)

Why is it nobody ever addressed my post in which I flat busted the truthers for clearly trying to dupe the public? 

They did this by creating their own on-line journals in order to make their junk science theories look like they are legitimately published. To all reasonable minded people who know how science is supposed to work this is a huge smoking gun that demonstrates just how untrustworthy their so called "findings" are.

Why don't we have more discussion on this? After all, this material has been posted numerous times in this post to prove everything from thermite being found, to the fire not being hot enough, etc. Then we see that they "published" this crap in fake journals. If that doesn't blow these theories out of the water I don't know what does.


----------



## Big P (Oct 20, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Why is it nobody ever addressed my post in which I flat busted the truthers for clearly trying to dupe the public?
> 
> They did this by creating their own on-line journals in order to make their junk science theories look like they are legitimately published. To all reasonable minded people who know how science is supposed to work this is a huge smoking gun that demonstrates just how untrustworthy their so called "findings" are.
> 
> Why don't we have more discussion on this? After all, this material has been posted numerous times in this post to prove everything from thermite being found, to the fire not being hot enough, etc. Then we see that they "published" this crap in fake journals. If that doesn't blow these theories out of the water I don't know what does.


 
if you are blind you must open your mind to be able to see

I think minds are made up, clearly they were never truely open to begin with in regards to this subject


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 20, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> thread start date - * 02-04-2008, 08:59 AM*
> what has changed since page 1?
> anything?


More people are aware of the truth now than then. Because of the questions and calls for a real investigation has probably prevented another false flag operation on US soil. Mostly more people becoming aware.




RickWhite said:


> Why is it nobody ever addressed my post in which I flat busted the truthers for clearly trying to dupe the public?


Nothing but your opinion with no proof to back it ... nothing new there.



RickWhite said:


> They did this by creating their own on-line journals in order to make their junk science theories look like they are legitimately published.


Again nothing more than your opinion, with no proof. 



RickWhite said:


> To all reasonable minded people who know how science is supposed to work this is a huge smoking gun that demonstrates just how untrustworthy their so called "findings" are.


It's only a smoking gun to a denier who can't dispute the evidence so tries to side step the issue. Too bad it doesn't work.



RickWhite said:


> Why don't we have more discussion on this?


Ah ... because it's a strawman argument and has no bearing on the evidence submitted.



RickWhite said:


> After all, this material has been posted numerous times in this post to prove everything from thermite being found, to the fire not being hot enough, etc. Then we see that they "published" this crap in fake journals.


You have yet to post any proof that these are "fake journals" and you want to know why? ... cause you can't.



RickWhite said:


> If that doesn't blow these theories out of the water I don't know what does.


You haven't produced any evidence to dispute the evidence in the papers put out. Since you can't do that, all you can do is side step the issue with who wrote it and where it is written which has nothing to do with the evidence found.
You STILL can't handle the FACT that most people what a real investigation ... might as well get use to it ... it's not going away.

Now on to the news ...
http://www.infowars.com/ex-cia-chief-james-woolsey-handed-down-gag-order-to-911-firefighters/Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters 
[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me.
If no bombs in the buildings as the deniers vehemently claim ... why the gag order? 
And if we have no proof and no one believe us as the deniers claim then why are they debating it in other counties?
http://world911truth.org/historic-911-debate-with-bigard-laurent-kassovitz-and-harrit-on-french-tv/Historic 9/11 Debate with Bigard, Laurent, Kassovitz and Harrit on French TV Oct 28.
You have until October 28 to learn French because French TV France 2s Lobjet du scandale with Guillaume Durand will air a historic debate over the official version of the 9/11 events.
On one side: 4 people with the hard task to defend the official version. On the other side, Jean-Marie Bigard, Mathieu Kassovitz, Éric Laurent and special guest Niels Harrit will tell France and the world why they dont support the official theory and why they find it disturbing.
This is already a victory for the Bigard/Kassovitz camp who challenged the French media to organize a fair debate over 9/11 after being vilified by many French journalists because of their positions on 9/11. They have been called many names and even received dead threats. But no serious journalist was able to challenge them on their positions and to seriously make a case against them. Now will be their chance, and like Bigard mentions in the below video, good luck to them.
They have got to put this out in English! They simply have to!


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/15/18625581.phpYes We Can: Investigate 9/11!

This is for all the deniers that claim no one is listening. No one believes the truth.








Debate-A-Thon in the Octagon

[youtube]N2wYF2_ORsQ&feature=player_embedded#[/youtube]


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 20, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> More people are aware of the truth now than then. Because of the questions and calls for a real investigation has probably prevented another false flag operation on US soil. Mostly more people becoming aware.
> 
> 
> Nothing but your opinion with no proof to back it ... nothing new there.
> ...


Are you unable to read or just a pathological liar?

I posted direct links to the fake journals given by the information you posted. You know, the ones listed as the source where the articles are posted according to the authors.

Are you trying to say that it is scientifically valid to open your own on-line journal with you as the editor and post your own research in it while inviting any John Q Public who agrees with you to post in it?

Are you saying this is a legitimate way to publish research?

You have responded to each sentence I wrote with a bald faced lie. Everything I said was proved. You know this is true, everyone here can look it up for themselves and yet you say otherwise.

Aside from repeating the bald faced lie that I haven't proved what I'm saying, what is your argument?

Again, yes or no, are you saying the authors that you referenced have posted their findings in respected journals aside from the open, on-line type ran by like minded people? If so which ones? 

And by the way, please learn what the term straw man means, you are misusing the term.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

GR has no reputation for clear headed thinking...what do you expect Rick... a miracle?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 20, 2009)

there's like 20 people in that pic. lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

Notice the "end the war" bit...... what does that have to do with a scientific investigation? 

It's farcical.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 20, 2009)

greenpeace? =-/


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

Of course... that makes sense...


----------



## Keenly (Oct 20, 2009)

ya know rick, you havent quite explained flight 93 (which never existed), the pentagon (obviously not a commercial aircraft) Or building 7



you seemed to be focused on how we are unable to convince you


were not trying to convince you anything

were putting the evidence out there


do with it what you will, but its out, its up for everyone else to make up their own minds about it


were just going to keep spreading the evidence around


you know, almost the same evidence that 
*Rudy Giuliani shipped overseas to have melted and recycled before any investigators could look at it*


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

Keenly has no idea how stupid it sounds when ppl say there was no flight 93? 

How are you going to get ppl to believe such crazy thinking????

How do you ever think ur going to be taken seriously.... by anybody?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 20, 2009)

[youtube]1XIyRP3D_d8[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 20, 2009)

I knew that show had some value


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> ya know rick, you havent quite explained flight 93 (which never existed), the pentagon (obviously not a commercial aircraft) Or building 7
> 
> 
> *Rudy Giuliani shipped overseas to have melted and recycled before any investigators could look at it*


Can you show me any evidence of this that is published in a credible source? You are saying a major airline is lying about one of their commercial jets having been one of those that crashed on that day? You are saying that all the people who were on board never existed? All the families who lost loved ones are really in on the conspiracy?

Building 7 was brought down by fire and from pieces of one or both of towers 1 & 2 hitting it according to the official investigation. Do you have CREDIBLE evidence to the contrary or just more of Jones' propaganda? Let me guess, you are going to post more propaganda found only in on-line journals and truther forums. Do you have anything from a respected journal or other source?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 21, 2009)

Jones is a kook. His own University has disowned him...... he's an embarrassment.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 21, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It is the rabid believers in 9/11 who are the true fringe liberal element. The try and USE pseudo science to prove a political point, regardless of the harm their beliefs truly cause society.


 Once again blowing shit out your ass ... with nothing to back it ... why am I not surprised. 



RickWhite said:


> Are you unable to read or just a pathological liar?


Still can't dispute the evidence in the papers eh? No surprises here ...



RickWhite said:


> I posted direct links to the fake journals given by the information you posted. You know, the ones listed as the source where the articles are posted according to the authors.


You mean the links to the papers that proves the government is lying? The papers with the evidence you can't dispute, so you claim they are "fake journals" with no proof what so ever ... those links?



RickWhite said:


> Are you trying to say that it is scientifically valid to open your own on-line journal with you as the editor and post your own research in it while inviting any John Q Public who agrees with you to post in it?


That your assessment of the situation ... you'd much rather divert the real issue which is the evidence presented. If you don't think they are credible so be it, but there are plenty of folks that do see it as credible. You can call all the names you like an pretend you are an authority ... you can not chance the facts. You and the other deniers just can't seem to handle that.



RickWhite said:


> Are you saying this is a legitimate way to publish research?


Yep. Now run along and form at the mouth because I do.



RickWhite said:


> You have responded to each sentence I wrote with a bald faced lie.


Again your opinion nothing more.



RickWhite said:


> Everything I said was proved.


To you and the rest of the deniers perhaps ... but not to the rest of us that want a real investigation.



RickWhite said:


> You know this is true,


I know it's true that you can't handle that most people want a real investigation ... and you will create as much of a diversion from the real issue as much as you can. Too bad for you and the rest of the deniers ... it doesn't work.



RickWhite said:


> everyone here can look it up for themselves and yet you say otherwise.


That's right ... they can ... you didn't count on that did ya!



RickWhite said:


> Aside from repeating the bald faced lie that I haven't proved what I'm saying, what is your argument?


You haven't taken one line from any of the reports or videos and proved why it is not science or evidence ... and you know why? ... cause you can't!



RickWhite said:


> Again, yes or no, are you saying the authors that you referenced have posted their findings in respected journals aside from the open, on-line type ran by like minded people? If so which ones?


I already posted the one about Gage that I posted way back on page 147 post #1470 and told you about it in post #2121 but since it didn't fit in with your fantasy you chose to ignore it.



RickWhite said:


> And by the way, please learn what the term straw man means, you are misusing the term.


Like you try to mislead and side step the real issue? Since you can't you try and focus on the messengers ... how's that working out for ya? 



fdd2blk said:


> there's like 20 people in that pic. lol


Does it give you comfort to believe there were only 20 people at the event? Good for you! 



CrackerJax said:


> Notice the "end the war" bit...... what does that have to do with a scientific investigation?
> It's farcical.


Of course 911 wasn't used at all to start these illegal wars ... you're pretty farcical.




CrackerJax said:


> Jones is a kook. His own University has disowned him...... he's an embarrassment.


Blowing shit out your ass again ... why would they put a "kook" on *paid *leave? What the hell kind of punishment is that? I should be so lucky.
You deniers are a riot! I love how you squirm because people want a real investigation ... it's too funny to watch you behave like children having a tantrum because you can't have your way. You just can't stand the fact people want a real investigation. It actually is eating you up inside. So you continue to post insults and tell us we are crazy ... I like it!


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 21, 2009)

You must be only reading the spin GR...... perhaps you know the truth but don't want to admit ur fearless leader has lost his credibility with those who knew him best....

Jones entered into truther lore in 2006 when he was *put into early retirement* by Brigham Young University in Utah after giving public lectures on his paper Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?, which he published on the website of the universitys physics department. Jones contended that the towers were demolished by cutter charges which had been placed throughout the buildings, probably involving an incendiary called thermite. *BYUs College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the structural engineering faculty, followed by the university administration, disowned him.


He sounds like he's left science behind at the university.....

==============================================

well you only responded once to me and ur post was way off the mark (as usual).... so I wonder how many points in regards to Rick are you off? Plenty I'm sure......ur data is all made up!
*


----------



## Keenly (Oct 21, 2009)

you guys have your heads so far in the sand i bet you can drink from the water table


----------



## doobnVA (Oct 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> you guys have your heads so far in the sand i bet you can drink from the water table


LOL! Let's hope the water they're drinking has been polluted by industrial waste. Who knows, a little mercury poisoning might actually make them SMARTER.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 21, 2009)

Yah, just forget that Jones has been discredited by his own alma mater.... sure.... heads in the sand over here!!! 

The scholars who know him best have tossed him to the curb...... yepper, heads in the sand alright!!!


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 21, 2009)

Well CJ, looks like we did a yeoman's job here. We now have them resorting to bald faced lies and meaningless contradiction. I would say they have been officially dispatched at this point.

Just think, if we would have gone to the original source material earlier we could have ended this in the first few pages - oh well.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 21, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> [youtube]1XIyRP3D_d8[/youtube]


That was the sound of a 16v Rolls Royce Merlin engine turning a Hamilton Standard 6813 propeller.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 21, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Building 7 was brought down by fire and from pieces of one or both of towers 1 & 2 hitting it according to the official investigation.



Wrong!! The official explanation for building 7 was " We don't know".


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 21, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Wrong!! The official explanation for building 7 was " We don't know".


If you've got this tiny bit wrong....what else is wrong?


The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was *primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department&#8217;s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation.* This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yah, just forget that Jones has been discredited by his own alma mater


You mean being put on leave with pay ... yeah ... that really discredits him 



CrackerJax said:


> .... sure.... heads in the sand over here!!!


At last ... a true statement from you! 



CrackerJax said:


> The scholars who know him best have tossed him to the curb


No proof of that ... no surprises here.



CrackerJax said:


> ...... yepper, heads in the sand alright!!!


Again ... another correct statement ... I think I may faint. 



CrackerJax said:


> If you've got this tiny bit wrong....what else is wrong?
> The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was *primarily due to fires,*


Once again you prove you have no credibility what so ever .... 
I posted this back on page 208 post #2074 right from NIST ...
NIST Response To Request
Right on page 3 big as life ...
*



we are unable to provide a full explanation - of the total collapse.

Click to expand...

*So much for your disinformation from a bogus report.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If you've got this tiny bit wrong....what else is wrong?
> 
> 
> The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was *primarily due to fires, the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation.* This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.


The NIST is not the "Official" report, the 911 commission report is the Official version and it basically states they don't know. (page 26 of the report)


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

Paid leave is NOT early retirement.

Jones was put on early retirement.

That means they held open the exit door and ASKED HIM to leave.

It wasn't Jones' idea to leave.... it was his own University and PEERS which did the deciding.


Paid or not.... asked to get the heck out!!


----------



## Keenly (Oct 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Paid leave is NOT early retirement.
> 
> Jones was put on early retirement.
> 
> ...



cracker so your saying that because large institutions with little to no desire for that kind of media attention, and they remove people who raise questions, that makes them wrong?



im pretty sure anyone who goes so far as to cover up the truth as to have people fired, and or removed from their postitions shows me that its pretty obvious what the truth is


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

Oh, now who's making stuff up!!! You THINK that's why huh? Convenient. 

His peers in the science dpts. all didn't want "that kind" of media attention?

What kind? Mockery? Having a professor who shows an inability to use good science? That kind of attention?

They were embarrassed...... and still are.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 22, 2009)

This has become a joke. GR is asking for proof that Jone's peers have turned their back on him. This should be easy.

From Wikipedia:

*Steven Earl Jones* is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University.


Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was *his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor*.[29] *Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[30] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[31]*

Jones maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication within a book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" by D.R. Griffin[32] The paper was published in the online peer-reviewed, "Journal of 9/11 Studies", a journal co-founded and co-edited by Jones for the purpose of "covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001." The paper also appeared in _Global Outlook_,[33] a magazine "seeking to reveal the truth About 9/11"[34] and in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[35]
In April 2008, Jones, along with four other authors, published a letter in _The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal_, titled, 'Fourteen Points of Agreement with 

Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction'[36]. In August 2008, Jones, along with Kevin Ryan and James Gourley, published a peer-reviewed article in _The Environmentalist_, titled, 'Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials'.[37] And in April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in _The Open Chemical Physics Journal_, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[38] *The editor of the journal, Professor **Marie-Paule Pileni**, an expert in explosives[39] and nano-technology[40], resigned as she received media inquiries about the article shortly after its publication. [41] Also of note, Bentham Publishing's peer review process has been drawn into question.*

Well, it sure seems like most of the academic and scientific community want nothing to do with this guy. Anyone have any 911 proof from sources not associated with Jones?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

(wind blows)


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 22, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> This has become a joke.


It is pretty funny ... you deniers simply can't accept the fact we are going to continue the pressure and post information concerning 911 ... too bad ... so sad.



RickWhite said:


> GR is asking for proof that Jone's peers have turned their back on him. This should be easy.


Doesn't look like it's working too well.



RickWhite said:


> From Wikipedia:


Oh you mean the place were anyone can post and edit anything at wikipedia ... that place?



RickWhite said:


> *Steven Earl Jones* is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University.


Yawn ... still trying to discredit Jones because you can't refute the evidence ... how's that working out for ya?




RickWhite said:


> Well, it sure seems like most of the academic and scientific community want nothing to do with this guy. Anyone have any 911 proof from sources not associated with Jones?


Well it seems like the deniers are doing all they can to distance themselves from refuting the evidence ... It's not working ... but they keep trying just the same.

And guess what! People STILL want a real investigation of 911 ... too bad ... so sad.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 22, 2009)

http://truthalliance.net/Archive/tabid/67/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3790/Default.aspxMore background on art students in WTC on 9/11 and the Israeli "art students" spy ring.
Hanan Serfaty was arrested by DEA agents in connection to the Israeli spy ring. What makes him stand out, is that he was listed as being an art student who was apart of the World Views program, which was in the World Trade Center on floors 90 and 91 in the Lower Manhatten Cultural Council. Although he is not listed by Gelitin as a member of The B-Thing, the listing of the identities of the other 14 students who were on floor 91 at the time was never released to the public, neither was the total list of those involved in the stunt which numbers at a minimum of 6.
It should be noted that 1 member of the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council died on 9/11 while working in his studio on the 91st floor. His name appears on the list of those who were in the building when it came down.
Hanan was an "art student" who was a former Israeli military intelligence officer who rented two Hollywood apartments close to the mail drop and apartment of Mohammed Atta and four other hijackers.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

Yes, that certainly makes up for all the incorrect and convoluted drivel U've posted so far. Everything is connected!!!!  Hooboy!!! Look his shirt was red!!!  That means something!!!


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 22, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> More background on art students in WTC on 9/11 and the Israeli "art students" spy ring.
> Hanan Serfaty was arrested by DEA agents in connection to the Israeli spy ring. What makes him stand out, is that he was listed as being an art student who was apart of the World Views program, which was in the World Trade Center on floors 90 and 91 in the Lower Manhatten Cultural Council. Although he is not listed by Gelitin as a member of The B-Thing, the listing of the identities of the other 14 students who were on floor 91 at the time was never released to the public, neither was the total list of those involved in the stunt which numbers at a minimum of 6.
> It should be noted that 1 member of the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council died on 9/11 while working in his studio on the 91st floor. His name appears on the list of those who were in the building when it came down.
> Hanan was an "art student" who was a former Israeli military intelligence officer who rented two Hollywood apartments close to the mail drop and apartment of Mohammed Atta and four other hijackers.


GR, honestly, how old are you? Please don't give a smart ass answer; we really want to know how old you are. I'm guessing you are probably around 15.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

His age would prove something he'd rather not face.....


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 22, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> GR, honestly, how old are you? Please don't give a smart ass answer; we really want to know how old you are. I'm guessing you are probably around 15.


As usual that has nothing to do with the issue or the evidence presented ... stop trying to side step the issue ... haven't you learn by now it doesn't work.
...oh ... and people STILL want a real investigation. No matter how much disinformation you put out. Too bad ... so sad.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 22, 2009)

There will never be another investigation to match the scope and breadth of the first one.... which means... U lose.


----------



## Big P (Oct 22, 2009)

grow rebel do you know for a fact 9/11 was an inside job? or do you think its highly probable but not definate?


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 23, 2009)

Big P said:


> grow rebel do you know for a fact 9/11 was an inside job? or do you think its highly probable but not definate?


No ... I don't know for a fact ... but yes I believe it is highly probable, the fact that the government doesn't want a real investigation is a real indication they are covering up ... and all the unanswered questions more that warrants a real investigation with subpoena power, testifying under oath with prison time for perjury. People want that kind of investigation and will not stop until we get one. Ventura is right when he said it has to come from the grass roots. I believe that to be the case. I also believe that because of the pressure ... we have prevent them from staging another false flag attack, and they want to do it very badly. The government knows that if a real investigation takes place high level members of government and the elite crowd would be charged with treason ... and they just can't have that ... not for the death of some peons.


----------



## Big P (Oct 23, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> No ... I don't know for a fact ... but yes I believe it is highly probable, the fact that the government doesn't want a real investigation is a real indication they are covering up ... and all the unanswered questions more that warrants a real investigation with subpoena power, testifying under oath with prison time for perjury. People want that kind of investigation and will not stop until we get one. Ventura is right when he said it has to come from the grass roots. I believe that to be the case. I also believe that because of the pressure ... we have prevent them from staging another false flag attack, and they want to do it very badly. The government knows that if a real investigation takes place high level members of government and the elite crowd would be charged with treason ... and they just can't have that ... not for the death of some peons.


 
understood, I dont know for sure and you dont know for sure. I think its highly doubtful you think its highly probable

its was a good debate.

+rep for sticking to your guns & good luck on your journey, if you find 100% proof I will be the first to stap myself with explosives and run and hug first official i see


Sike


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 23, 2009)

GR thinks the most convoluted conspiracy ever developed....... is highly probable...


----------



## Keenly (Oct 23, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> GR thinks the most convoluted conspiracy ever developed....... is highly probable...


this claim is false

GR does not believe the 9/11 commission report



this is the convoluted conspiracy theory your referring to right?


it doesnt matter how much you 2 troll, scream kick and cry

we will not stop


prepare to waste your lives in this thread cracker and rick, because its never going to stop


ever


and you really dont like that i can taste it


----------



## Big P (Oct 23, 2009)

hey I thought up a really stupid joke when i was munchin in my kitchen last night


What kind of car does Osama Bin ladin drive?










a Porsche 911 ofcoarse ya I know pretty dumb



ok so GR and every other truther in here, if it comes out 100% proof that it was not and inside job

would you guys be ashamed of yourselves at all? would you be sorry?


like I said this thread is very offensive but imagine if your wife or duaghter died in that attack.



so thats the question, would you be ashamed of the false propeganda you have been spewing?




ill go first,

If it turned out that you guys were right I would feel like a 2 pump chump gulible bitch made son of a bitch who couldnt fight his way outa a wet paper bag


----------



## Keenly (Oct 23, 2009)

i would not be ashamed

i would not be sorry

dissent is the highest form of patriotism


----------



## Big P (Oct 23, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i would not be ashamed
> 
> i would not be sorry
> 
> dissent is the highest form of patriotism


 

dissent from somthing that is a true wrong is patriotism


dissenting and being wrong about it is completly different and worth an apology


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 23, 2009)

Keenly said:


> this claim is false
> 
> GR does not believe the 9/11 commission report
> 
> ...


Being absurd doesn't make you seem any smarter.... hmmm.

If you don't think ur .... ahem... theory (I'll be kind) is convoluted.... you need to quit smoking dope. You've had enough.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 23, 2009)

If I were PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt about every shred of evidence no matter how contrived, then yes I would apologize. Fortunately that will never happen so I can sit here smugly knowing I have many more battles to wage! On with the Show!

"This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word." [Public Action]

Is an extract from bin Laden's September 28, 2001 denial of involvement in the 9/11 attacks...


When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." [Muckraker Report]

But of course Bush thinks he did it, hahaha can it be more obvious?

And if Bin Laden had nothing to do with it then who was behind it all?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 23, 2009)

In the end you don't want another investigation.... not really.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 23, 2009)

We all do, and if we were proven wrong, well I would have to just shake my head and just take it all in and let it be. 

We do not want another government run investigation using government agents to collect all the information and all government labs to do all the research. You know, the whole fox and henhouse deal and all.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 23, 2009)

Oh I just don't believe that.... if the second one reinforced the first....you would all call for a third!!! 

Conspiracy ppl never let go of it.....


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 24, 2009)

Big P said:


> ok so GR and every other truther in here, if it comes out 100% proof that it was not and inside job
> 
> would you guys be ashamed of yourselves at all? would you be sorry?


No ... I did the right thing to question. That's what a true American would do when the government's conspiracy theory blatantly doesn't add up.




Big P said:


> like I said this thread is very offensive but imagine if your wife or duaghter died in that attack.


It's only offensive to those that can't handle the truth. If my "wife" or daughter died in the attack ... I would be like those family members demanding a new investigation. I'd want the people truly responsible for their deaths to be held accountable ... not some made up terror group, so the government can commit war crimes with impunity.




Big P said:


> so thats the question, would you be ashamed of the false propeganda you have been spewing?


Merely your opinion with nothing to back it up.



Big P said:


> ill go first,
> 
> If it turned out that you guys were right I would feel like a 2 pump chump gulible bitch made son of a bitch who couldnt fight his way outa a wet paper bag


I'll keep this statement for the record.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

Ur the one with no back up..... all you have is Jones...who's not even credible.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 24, 2009)

your not exactly credible yourself cracker



you make me laugh, telling me what i want as if i dont know what i want


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

Gosh...yah I'm not credible

By and large, everything I have ever posted is either come true or is coming true. Name a big issue, and u'll find me on the accurate side.

The truthers side is NOT accurate. It is NOT scientific. You quote anecdotal and context disoriented data created by shadow sources and kooks like Jones, who has lost his academic standing by his peers.

I face facts..... I don't scurry around bolstering up a tiny piece of any issue and then try and say the whole thing is correct. There are so many holes in the truthers diatribe.... it's pitiful. 

Just write it out in a few paragraphs .... less than 500 word essay on what you think happened..... the truther version. Planes security, remote control, no flight 93, no pentagon hit, thermite.... put it all in a time line that can be followed. Don't just mix ur peas with ur mash. Put it in one concise and short paragraph or two.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Gosh...yah I'm not credible


Correct statement



CrackerJax said:


> By and large, everything I have ever posted is either come true or is coming true.


In your mind perhaps, but from most of our perspectives ... NOT



CrackerJax said:


> Name a big issue, and u'll find me on the accurate side.


Nothing more than your delusional opinion.



CrackerJax said:


> The truthers side is NOT accurate.


Yawn ... same old ... same old ... with nothing ... as usual ... to back it up.



CrackerJax said:


> It is NOT scientific.


again nothing more than a wrong opinion with nothing to back it. Just because you deny it's scientific doesn't mean it isn't ... which it is.



CrackerJax said:


> You quote anecdotal and context disoriented data created by shadow sources and kooks like Jones, who has lost his academic standing by his peers.


Still trying to discredited ONE of the many scientists and engineers that have found evidence that counters the government's conspiracy theory ... you can't refute the evidence so you try to divert the issue ... how's that working out for you?



CrackerJax said:


> I face facts.....


That's an obvious lie ... you couldn't face the *FACT* that the NIST didn't know what caused WTC 7 to collapse among other facts presented in this thread.



CrackerJax said:


> I don't scurry around bolstering up a tiny piece of any issue and then try and say the whole thing is correct.


Yeah ... right ... 



CrackerJax said:


> There are so many holes in the truthers diatribe.... it's pitiful.


Another one of your fantasy. You just can't stand the FACT people want a real investigation and will never give up until there is one. Aw... too bad ... so sad.



CrackerJax said:


> Just write it out in a few paragraphs .... less than 500 word essay on what you think happened..... the truther version.


I got a much better idea ... how bout I keep posting the news and events surrounding 911 and you write the 500 word essay ... have fun.



CrackerJax said:


> Planes security, remote control, no flight 93, no pentagon hit, thermite.... put it all in a time line that can be followed. Don't just mix ur peas with ur mash. Put it in one concise and short paragraph or two.


Remember your instructions when you write it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 24, 2009)

Can't do it huh..... thought not.


----------



## Keenly (Oct 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Can't do it huh..... thought not.



so because we wont write an essay on it, were wrong?



are you taking your meds today?


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 24, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> As usual that has nothing to do with the issue or the evidence presented ... stop trying to side step the issue ... haven't you learn by now it doesn't work.
> ...oh ... and people STILL want a real investigation. No matter how much disinformation you put out. Too bad ... so sad.


GR, tell us how old you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm getting the impression you are a child on here to screw with people. You aren't even 18 are you?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 24, 2009)

Pretty sure she is over 18.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 25, 2009)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21703France 2 cancels TV 9/11 debate. Unable to find credible participants willing to support OCT
State-owned television channel France 2 just decided to cancel the historic French debate which was announced earlier this week by Jean-Marie Bigard and reported on World911Truth.org, ReOpen911.info, Infowars.com, 911Blogger.com, and many others. This has been confirmed by Mathieu Kassovitz on Friday.
France 2 supposedly cannot find four credible people that want to debate 9/11 against Bigard, Kassovitz, Laurent and Harrit. Surprised? Maybe we have judged Barack Obama too quickly. Maybe he is right when he says that 9/11 is not debatable. Even one of the most important television channel in France cannot find credible people to support the official story.
Nevertheless, the TV channel will air the October 28 show but with Bigard and Kassovitz only. This has also been confirmed by Mathieu Kassovitz a few hours after announcing the show was totally cancelled. But there will be no real debate.

... and I was so looking forward to a real debate ... could it be that France2 succumbed to political pressure or is the claim true that they just couldn't find a creditable group to support the government's conspiracy theory? 
I would have much rather seen a debate ... but anyone in their right mind knows they would get creamed.

I found an interesting site from the UK ...
9/11: Distinguishing The Propaganda From The Smoking Guns 
Those in control of the world have top-secret exotic technologies. These technologies could replace oil and gas, but instead have been weaponized. 9/11 was orchestrated with these technologies. They plan a police state culture and dont mind if a limited number of people are exposed to the 9/11 propaganda, as long as the advanced technologies remain secret. See The 9/11 Truth Movement, Free Energy Suppression and the Global Elites Agenda for full information





*Not only do the media censor information, theyre a propaganda-promotion tool*

Five corporations now control what most Americans hear, read, or see.

Lots of interesting stuff ... check it out if and when you can.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 28, 2009)

Having some technical difficulties folks ... will return ASAP with the latest 911 news.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 28, 2009)

Having some technical difficulties folks ... will return ASAP with the latest 911 news.


----------



## Big P (Oct 28, 2009)

i tire of your insolence, unsubscribed


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 30, 2009)

[URL="http://www.911blogger.com/node/21721"]Did Training Exercises Prevent Andrews Air Force Base From Responding to the 9/11 Attacks?[/url]
While discussing the 9/11 attacks, in 2004, Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian minister of national defense, posed the question, Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]  right next to the capital? He said: With a quick-reaction alert they should have been in the air in five minutes or 10 minutes. If not, as a minister of national defense, which in the United States would be the secretary of defense, I would want to say, Why not? [22]
His questions are as pertinent today as they were five years ago.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 31, 2009)

911 and what is happening now is all interrelated ... the elite wouldn't have been able to loot the treasury as easily as they have without 911. That's why the truth must be generally known.
I agree most are asleep at the wheel and will suffer greatly when the walls come crashing down. But 911 is a big link pin in all the corruption that is going on in Washington.


----------



## GrowRebel (Oct 31, 2009)

Censored 9-11 Police Radio Transmissions Urban Moving Vans
[youtube]ielNX8WOv6g&feature=related[/youtube]
It appears something new has been added to the mix. I haven't heard of this before now. Check it if you can.


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 31, 2009)

Ok, A truck with a mural of an airplane crashing into new york city was pulled over and it was found to have a huge amount of explosives in it. Pffft that has nothing to do with 911, pure coincidence. NOT!! The fact that they are Israeli and were sent to DOCUMENT the EVENT. Holt shit, do you need a bigger smoking gun?


----------



## NoDrama (Oct 31, 2009)

Which then begs the question. Why would they do this? Does Israel have enemies? Who are they? Where do they live? Is anyone over there killing Israel's Enemies?


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 2, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Which then begs the question. Why would they do this? Does Israel have enemies? Who are they? Where do they live? Is anyone over there killing Israel's Enemies?


I hear ya ... Israel seems to be part of this story. I don't know if you were around during the watergate hearings ... every major network had it on ... and it got better rating that the regular programs ... can you image the ratings they would have with a real public investigation with subpoena power and prison time for perjury? Man ... I would be glued to the TV.

Well folks my technical difficulties ... and sorry for that double post by the way ... were that my computer died on me ... turn out to be the mobo board ... services for the dearly departed where held last Friday, with friends and immediate family ... I bought and installed a new mobo ... got all the tweaking and troubleshooting done ... now I'm back and ready to continue "The 911 News Update"
The site below has a lot of links to a lot of issues important to the average American. The federal reserve ... election fraud ... 911 ... lot of interesting stuff ... 
http://bushstole04.com/911/reasons_doubt_911.htmReasons to Doubt the Official Story about the 9/11 Attacks
Reasons to Doubt the Official Story about the 9/11 Attacks
The Bush Regime
by Andrew Mills
The more you study the facts and the circumstantial evidence surrounding the 9/11 attacks, the more you doubt the official explanation of the attacks given in the 9/11 Commission Report. Most all the necessary information is, or has been, available through the major media. It's just a matter of pulling it all together and organizing the data. When you do that, you are left with major doubts about the official story and you begin to suspect that some of our officials may have been involved, at least in the sense that they had fore-knowledge of the attacks and just let them happen.


Here's something else from the site ...
*The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies*
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
Gordon Duff Salem-News.com
How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmers book:The Ground Truth: The Story Behind Americas Defense on 9/11, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks? Where is the Evidence? 

The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an article of faith points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea.
On the other hand, as I pointed out at length in two of my books  9/11 Contradictions1 and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,2 no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it.
*Tony Blair's Weak Document*
*The FBI's Surprising Statement*
*The 9/11 Commission*
*The "Bin Laden Confession Tapes"*
*Conclusion*
_*David Ray Griffin* is professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. 
_


_Here's Alex Jones being interviewed by RT about ... 
_
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8162US a powerslave serving aims of New World Order

_
_


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 3, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> All the families who lost loved ones are really in on the conspiracy?





THAT is the fuckin point .... You or anyone else find me ONE family member from ANY one of those planes that day ? 
that will not be happenin anytime soon , because you cant. There is no proof of that one , and that is just one of at least 10 questions i have seen you just look over or say its uncredible. Then u refer to the truthers as "nut jobs" and half the folks on here asking YOU direct questions , are not even "truthers" .... i cant be one if i dont know right? we are just regular folks asking a few questions that you CANNOT answer . So all people with Q's about politics are "nut jobs" right? 
i just dont get why you are pushing us to believe something that you cant even understand yourself?


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 3, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> This has become a joke. GR is asking for proof that Jone's peers have turned their back on him. This should be easy.
> 
> From Wikipedia:






you might wanna double check YOUR resources.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 3, 2009)

you guys still arguing? lol


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If you've got this tiny bit wrong....what else is wrong?
> 
> 
> The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was *primarily due to fires, the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation.* This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.


If you've got this tiny bit wrong....what else is wrong?


----------



## Keenly (Nov 3, 2009)

some news came out today, ill wait for gr to post it



basically government officials admitting there were explosives....


you guys are going to love it


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 3, 2009)

Why don't you just post it, keenly? lol


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 3, 2009)

The day after it happened Peter Jennings interviewed one of the survivors. Listen as she tells about the BASEMENT blowing up. Just more proof of explosives.

[youtube]TSGZYP--wz0[/youtube]


----------



## FreeLeaf (Nov 3, 2009)

I have read through a few of these posts and I found it strange that all of the people that are 9/11 truthers are in fact either progressives, liberals or liberal activists. I wonder how these quasi socialists would have reacted if we would have been attacked during the Clinton administration? I tell you what would have happened. Nothing. You would have not heard a peep from them. Hell it might have even encouraged them to fly an American flag out front of their home. That is because they are politically motivated. These types of people try and exploit a true American tragedy because of their hatred towards those that disagree with them on political issues. Now I am not referring to your average Democrat, I am referring to the true wack jobs. The people who's hatred is so intense that it drives them to become a 9/11 truther. But what is really ironic is that these wack jobs hated Bush so much for taking us to war in the middle east, that they spoke of conservatives as being war mongers and baby killers as they all lined up to vote for a truly radical Democratic candidate for president. What they did not know is that a Democratic president was in the White House during the war of 1812 (we declared war), Jefferson Davis, The president of the confederate states of America who succeeded from the union was a Democrat, Wilson (D) who took us to war in WW1, FDR (D) for WW2, Truman (D) the Korean war and finally Johnson (D) Vietnam. Being a peace loving Capitalist, I tend to vote Republican. 
Speak freely while you still can. The Obama truth squad may be listening !


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 3, 2009)

FreeLeaf said:


> I have read through a few of these posts and I found it strange that all of the people that are 9/11 truthers are in fact either progressives, liberals or liberal activists.!


I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this statement. I would say most of us "truthers" are Conservatives/independents/Constitutionalists.

Total opposite.


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 3, 2009)

FreeLeaf said:


> I have read through a few of these posts and I found it strange that all of the people that are 9/11 truthers are in fact either progressives, liberals or liberal activists.


Generalize much?

You are VERY wrong!! I would say that about 10% are socialists, the rest are just average middle of the line folks. Plenty of independents, Libertarians, conservatives and right wing nuts too. Most of the truthers do not post anywhere else in the politics section anyway so how you can deduce what their political views are is beyond me. Broken brain?

If you have only read 3 posts of the 2,319 available you are sure to FAIL at any generalization you make. And since you are so adept at classifying people's politics , can you please go ahead and classify me? What way do I lean?


----------



## Keenly (Nov 3, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Why don't you just post it, keenly? lol


 
cause i cant stop playing borderlands


im 100% addicted to it


=) try it


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 3, 2009)

Keenly said:


> cause i cant stop playing borderlands
> 
> 
> im 100% addicted to it
> ...


No thanks, I got addicted to Everquest a few years back, won't do that again.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 3, 2009)

Keenly said:


> cause i cant stop playing borderlands
> 
> 
> im 100% addicted to it
> ...


what is it? lol


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 3, 2009)




----------



## Katatawnic (Nov 3, 2009)

Whatcha spinnin' there, FDD? (Oh, what a web we weave... lol)


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 4, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> Whatcha spinnin' there, FDD? (Oh, what a web we weave... lol)


i'm watching everyone else spin their wheels. i walked away from this thread a month ago, it's the exact same people saying the exact same things today as it was then. 

i love having to explain simple humor.


----------



## Katatawnic (Nov 4, 2009)

You haven't expected it to change, have you? That's the beauty of this thread; or at least the entertainment factor. 

And considering this is a stoner forum... of course simple things need explaining.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 4, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> You haven't expected it to change, have you? That's the beauty of this thread; or at least the entertainment factor.
> 
> And considering this is a stoner forum... of course simple things need explaining.


didn't mean to come off crass, sorry.

something bad happened in front of my house the other morning. it's got me troubled.  not anything that sharing could help though. i'll try to behave.


----------



## NorthwestBuds (Nov 4, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> didn't mean to come off crass, sorry.
> 
> something bad happened in front of my house the other morning. it's got me troubled.  not anything that sharing could help though. i'll try to behave.


You did not come off as crass. Sorry you got bummed out.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 4, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm watching everyone else spin their wheels. i walked away from this thread a month ago, it's the exact same people saying the exact same things today as it was then.


Maybe if you sheep would listen the first time


----------



## Big P (Nov 4, 2009)

i guess its good to give these guys an avenue to vent in this thread, atleast we can keep them contained and venting.



i submit there would be a higher probablity that the people in this thread were behind the 9/11 attacks so they could say the government did it 



thats the most sensible theory in this thread to date it makes total sense!



*"the 9/11 truthers were behind the 9/11 attacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!"*



dont make me make a thread with that tittle. I can already sense the satiriacal posts


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 4, 2009)

Big P said:


> *"the 9/11 truthers were behind the 9/11 attacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!"*


O....M.....G... I did it and didn't even know it ! 

Makes more sense than people that live with sand up their butt i suppose 







ewww scary ! "I can do the monkey bars YAY !"


----------



## Big P (Nov 4, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> O....M.....G... I did it and didn't even know it !
> 
> Makes more sense than people that live with sand up their butt i suppose
> 
> ...


 

keep telling yourself that gordon,

it is he who dismisses or under estimates his enemy who is the real fool.


I happen to be an Arab and lets be honest, what you are invoking up there is racism, however non of the people on this forum who act like the all mighty infalable non racisits would even chime in about this comment. lol the irony is im the one who gets called a racist. funny, if you make fun of a black person its a big big no no but those "racist" black people wouldnt even bat an eye at comments like that made above.

im not insulted by it, dont get me wrong its the hypocrasy that bothers me. the monkey bars thing is funny they look like chumps on those monkey bars lol

but the sheer ignorence of your statment makes me worry about your defensive capabilites, i hope you never end up in jail












now which one of these attacks was faked again????? huh guys? let me know which of the above attacks were faked, specially you GrowRebel


surly your not saying all of these were false flag attacks by the US are you? pls clarify



Surly these dirty arabs could never have the intellect to organize and execute this?

man you have no idea what your playing with. you basically work for them by posting this shit

1989








Al Qaeda Established 




Osama bin Laden -- along with Muhammad Atef and Abu Ubaidah al Banshiri -- founds Al Qaeda ("The Base"). The organization operates out of Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan.
Read more about Al Qaeda's establishment in the U.S. indictment of Osama bin Laden. 














November 1989 








Battle for Control of Office of Services 




After a car bomb kills Sheik Abdullah Azzam, a battle for control of the Office of Services breaks out between those who believe the jihad should focus on the creation of an Islamic state in Afghanistan, and extremists sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, who want to expand the struggle worldwide. The extremist faction eventually takes control. 










December 1989 








Oklahoma Meeting of Future Terrorists 




At a conference of Muslims held in Oklahoma City, Wadih el-Hage, a U.S. citizen later convicted in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings trial, meets with Egyptian Mahmud Abuhalima, who is later convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Abuhalima later tries to buy guns from el-Hage.
For more details on el-Hage's Al Qaeda connections, read FRONTLINE's "A Portrait of Wadih el-Hage". 















February 1989








Soviet Forces Withdraw from Afghanistan 




The Soviets' humiliating defeat by mujahedeen forces in their 10-year long war inspires Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to believe their victory in Afghanistan can be replicated around the world. At the end of the war, many of the "Afghan Arabs," as the radicals were called, returned home. Osama bin Laden returns to Saudi Arabia.














November 1990 








Bomb Manuals, Photos Discovered 




During an investigation into the assassination of the right-wing rabbi Meir Kahane, authorities discover bomb manuals and photographs of the World Trade Center and the Empire State Building in the apartment of an Egyptian, El-Sayyid Nosair. Nosair reportedly is an associate of Wadih el-Hage. 
It is later learned that Nosair's legal bills in the WTC bombing trial were paid for by bin Laden. This is the earliest known intelligence information linking bin Laden to terrorists. 






1991 








Bin Laden Flees to Sudan 




Bin Laden leaves Saudi Arabia and travels to Afghanistan with some of his supporters. By 1992, they finally settle in Khartoum, Sudan. 
Read more on FRONTLINE's "Hunting bin Laden" chronology. 











1992 








Bin Laden Organizes Attacks on U.N. Forces in Somalia 




According to a document released by the British government after the Sept. 11 attacks, between 1992 and 1993, Mohammed Atef, an Egyptian aide to bin Laden, travels frequently to Somalia to organize violent attacks on U.S. and U.N. troops stationed there. After each trip he reports back to bin Laden in Khartoum. 










1992 








Expanding the Terror Network 




According to the U.S. indictment of bin Laden, between 1992 and 1996 Al Qaeda makes overtures to Iran and Hezbollah to take part in a global war against the U.S. The indictment alleges that Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, an Al Qaeda leader, met with Iranian officials and that Al Qaeda sent members to Lebanon to receive training from members of Hezbollah. American officials also claim that around this time bin Laden's group begins an effort to secure components for chemical and nuclear weapons. 















Dec. 29, 1992 








Al Qaeda's First Attack 




In an apparent plot to kill U.S. servicemen headed to Somalia, a bomb explodes at a hotel in Aden, Yemen and kills two Austrian tourists. Two Yemeni Muslims -- who had been trained in Afghanistan -- are injured and later arrested. Intelligence officials believe this is Al Qaeda's first attack. 
The Associated Press later reports that two of the Yemenis detained for the 2000 attack on the USS Cole were involved both in this 1992 Aden bombing, and a series of other attacks in 1993. 










Feb. 26, 1993 








World Trade Center Bombing 




A truck bomb explodes in the parking garage of the World Trade Center (WTC) killing six and injuring hundreds. Investigators discover the suspects have links to a network of Islamic extremists. Several people eventually convicted in the bombing are linked to the Office of Service's Al Kifah Center in Brooklyn; four of these men are connected to Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric who was the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, is later convicted of conspiracy for his involvement in a plot to blow up New York City landmarks. He is sentenced to life in prison.




Investigators charge Ramzi Yousef as the mastermind behind the WTC bombing and begin a worldwide manhunt. They discover immigration officials had already detained Ahmed Ajaj, a Yousef associate, when he entered the U.S. carrying terrorist training manuals.
Osama bin Laden's name surfaces during the 1993 WTC investigation as a financier of the Office of Services. His name is also found on a list of individuals who was called from a safe house used by the conspirators. During the WTC bombing trial, bin Laden's name appears on a list of potential unindicted co-conspirators, but Al Qaeda is never mentioned. 






April 1993 








Final Training of Somali Forces 




According to a document published by the British government, Muhammad Atef, Saif al Adel and other members of Al Qaeda return to Somalia to train Somali forces to attack U.N. troops. 










July 1993 








Future Bojinka Conspirators Meet 




Pakistani Abdul Hakim Murad -- later convicted for his role in the 1995 Bojinka ("Big Bang") plot to blow up twelve airliners -- meets Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at Mohammed's house in Karachi, Pakistan while visiting with Ramzi Yousef. Murad would later tell investigators that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- suspected of helping to plan the Sept. 11 attacks -- had an intense interest in pilot training. 






Oct. 3-4, 1993 








"Black Hawk Down" 








Eighteen American soldiers are attacked and killed in Mogadishu, Somalia. A U.S. indictment later charges bin Laden and his followers with training the attackers. 
Read more about the incident on FRONTLINE's "Ambush in Mogadishu" Web site.










Late 1993 








Al Qaeda Contemplates Nairobi Attack 




Members of an Al Qaeda cell in Kenya discuss attacking the U.S. embassy there. Ali Mohamed, a U.S. citizen, later admits to investigators that he took photographs and sketches of the embassy and presented them to bin Laden in the Sudan. 














1994 








Air France Flight Hijacked 




A group of Algerian hijackers seize an Air France flight headed for Paris. The crisis ends after French commandos storm the plane. According to some French investigators, the hijackers planned to blow up the plane above Paris or crash it into the Eiffel Tower. 


1994-1995 








Ramzi Yousef Hides 




Ramzi Yousef, suspected mastermind of the 1993 WTC attack, hides out in the Philippines with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be his uncle. The two reportedly plan a number of potential terrorist attacks. 






January 1994 








Bin Laden Funds Sudan Terrorist Camps 




By January 1994, bin Laden is reportedly supporting at least three Sudan training camps. 










July 11, 1994 








Al Qaeda's London Office 




According to a later U.S. indictment, bin Laden sets up a media information office in London which will serve as a message center and provide cover for Al Qaeda operations. The center is run by Khalid al-Fawwaz. 






August 1994 








Marrakesh Hotel Attack 




In Marrakesh, Morocco, two Spaniards are killed when three French Muslims open fire on tourists in a hotel lobby. European investigators reportedly discover phone calls between the suspects and the Office of Services. They also start to uncover a network of Afghan jihad war veterans in Europe. 






December 1994 








Konsojaya Established in Malaysia 




Investigators come to suspect that a company named Konsojaya is a front for funneling money from bin Laden to regional operatives. Wali Khan Amin Shah, a Pakistani, and an Indonesian cleric named Riduan Isamuddin (AKA "Hambali") established the company. A number of phone calls are made from Konsojoya offices to Mohammed Khalifa, bin Laden's brother-in-law, who allegedly ran a charity front for Al Qaeda. The Hambali connection to this group is only discovered after Sept. 11. 
*2004 Update:* "Hambali" now in U.S. custody - see details.






December 1994 








Bojinka Plot -- A Test Run 




Ramzi Yousef plants a small bomb on a Philippine Airlines plane. The bomb explodes during the second leg of the trip and kills a Japanese businessman. Authorities later discover the bombing is a test run for the planned Bojinka attack. 






January 1995 








Bojinka Plot Discovered 








Following an explosion in a Manila apartment, Philippine police uncover a plot -- code-named Bojinka or Big Bang -- to blow up 12 airplanes bound for the U.S. Authorities arrest Abdul Hakim Murad, a Pakistani who is an associate of Ramzi Yousef. Yousef flees to Pakistan.
Investigators also discover that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had visited the apartment frequently. His name is found on documents inside a computer that contain details of the Bojinka plot. 






Jan. 20, 1995 








Planes as Weapons 




In the Bojinka investigation, Manila police interview Abdul Hakim Murad. According to their report, Murad describes his discussions with Ramzi Yousef about hijacking a commercial aircraft and flying it into the headquarters of the CIA. 
Yousef and Murad also reportedly discuss the idea of using a small airplane loaded with explosives to bomb targets in the U.S. 










Feb. 5, 1995 








Ramzi Yousef Captured in Pakistan 




Just as FBI Agent John O'Neill begins his new job as section chief of the FBI's Counterterrorism Section, Yousef is located in Pakistan. O'Neill helps coordinate his capture. Afterwards, authorities learn Yousef spent part of the previous three years living in a bin Laden-funded guesthouse. 










August 1995 








Bin Laden's Letter to King Fahd 




Bin Laden sends an open letter to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calling for a campaign against U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. 















December 1995 








Bojinka Plotter Arrested 




Wali Khan Amin Shah is arrested in Malaysia and rendered to the United States. He is later convicted for his role in the Bojinka plot. 


1996 








Authorities Focus In On Bin Laden 




The U.S. State Department issues a dossier on bin Laden that claims he is a financier of radical Islamic causes and connects him to the 1992 hotel bombing in Aden, Yemen and the training of the Somalis who attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu. At the same time, a grand jury investigation of Osama bin Laden is initiated in New York. 










January 1996 








Station "Alex" Confirms Scale of Al Qaeda 




The FBI and CIA create a joint station, code-named Alex, with the mission of tracking down bin Laden. Richard Clarke would later tell FRONTLINE that with the establishment of Station Alex, We were able over the course of about 18 months to go from thinking there was a bin Laden network to seeing it in 56 countries. 










May 1996 








Sudan Expels Bin Laden 




Under international pressure, Sudan expels bin Laden. He and his followers return to Afghanistan. 






Spring 1996








An Al Qaeda Informer 




Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl leaves Al Qaeda after he's discovered embezzling money from the organization. Al-Fadl begins cooperating with the U.S., providing information on Al Qaeda's organization and how it operates. 










June 25, 1996 








Khobar Towers Bombing, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia 








Nineteen American soldiers are killed and 500 people injured in the bombing. Investigators will eventually conclude that the most likely scenario is that the Iranian government commissioned Saudi Hezbollah terrorists to carry out the attack. [See Richard Clarke interview.] Others, however, are convinced bin Laden played some role in the attack. 










Sept. 5, 1996 








Bojinka Convictions 




Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah are convicted for their role in the Bojinka plot. 










May 22, 1997 








Terrorists Reported To Be Operating in U.S. 




The Associated Press reports that senior FBI officials have determined terrorist groups are operating in America. The AP quotes John O'Neill, who is now special agent in charge of the national security division in New York as saying, Almost every one of these groups has a presence in the United States today. A lot of these groups now have the capacity and the support infrastructure in the United States to attack us here if they choose to. 










Aug. 21, 1997 








Evidence of Nairobi Al Qaeda Cell 




Police search Wadih el-Hage's home in Nairobi, Kenya. On his computer they discover documents, which outline the presence of an Al Qaeda cell in Nairobi. Read more on FRONTLINE's "Hunting bin Laden: Warnings to the FBI"]
After the raid, el-Hage is questioned but not detained, and he returns to America. In the fall, el-Hage denies his involvement in terrorism to a New York grand jury. 






Feb. 23, 1998 








Al Qaeda Calls for Killing Americans 




Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri issue a declaration with other extremist groups calling on Muslims to kill Americans anywhere in the world. 
Read their statement on FRONTLINE's "Hunting bin Laden" chronology. 










June 8, 1998 








Bin Laden Indicted 




A U.S. grand jury issues a sealed indictment charging bin Laden with conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States. The indictment alleges bin Laden is involved in the October 1993 attack on U.S. soldiers in Somalia. 










June 10, 1998 








Interview with Bin Laden 




John Miller of ABC News interviews bin Laden in his mountaintop camp in Afghanistan. During the interview bin Laden admits to knowing Wali Khan Amin Shah, one of the Bojinka plotters, but denies having met Ramzi Yousef. He also denies knowledge of the Bojinka plot or a related plot to assassinate Clinton. 
Watch the interview on FRONTLINE's Hunting bin Laden Web site. 















August 1998 








FAA Warns of Hijackings 




The Federal Aviation Administration warns airlines to be on a high degree of alertness for possible hijackings by Al Qaeda. 










Aug. 6, 1998 








Egyptian Jihad's Warning 




The group, led by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, warns of a message they will be sending to Americans, which we hope they read with care, because we will write it, with God's help, in a language they will understand. 















Aug. 7, 1998 








Bombing of U.S. Embassies 








American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are bombed almost simultaneously. The Kenya bombing kills 213 and injures 4,500; the Dar es Salaam bombing kills 11 and injures 85. One of the bombers, Mohamed Al-'Owhali, a Saudi, flees the scene. 
During the investigation, a search of the apartment of Khalid al-Fawwaz, the head of Al Qaeda's London office, reveals manuals virtually identical to those found in the luggage of Ahmad Ajaj, who was connected to Ramzi Yousef and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, a Jordanian who would later be convicted in the embassy bombings trial, is arrested in Pakistan when he tries to enter from Kenya with a fake passport. 
A group calling itself the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places faxes claims of responsibility for the attack to different media organizations in France, Qatar, and the UAE. According to a document published by the British government, a later investigation reveals that the fax was sent from a telephone number linked to Osama bin Laden. 












Progress in Embassy Investigation 




Mohamed al-'Owhali is arrested by Kenyan detectives and confesses to his role in the embassy bombing. Intelligence officials intercept calls between two bin Laden lieutenants implicating them in the embassy bombing. Advisors also warn President Clinton that they have evidence that bin Laden is attempting to purchase weapons of mass destruction. 







Aug. 20, 1998 








Tomahawk Missile Attack 




President Clinton orders Tomahawk missiles fired at a suspected Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, which was suspected of producing chemical weapons for bin Laden. The effectiveness of the strikes is later questioned. 


September 1998 








Ali Mohamed Arrested 




Ali Mohamed, a U.S. citizen and Al Qaeda member, is arrested in the U.S. Soon after, he begins cooperating and admits he took pictures of the Nairobi embassy and showed them to bin Laden. On Oct. 20, 2000, Mohamed tells a judge, Bin Laden looked at the picture of the American embassy and pointed to where a truck could go as a suicide bomber. 










Sept. 23, 1998 








Links Between East Africa and 1993 WTC Bombing 




At a bail hearing for Wadih el-Hage, the U.S. Attorney claims el-Hage had links to El Sayyid Nosair and Mahmud Abouhalima, both convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. 











November 4 1998 








Bin Laden Indictment Released 




The U.S. government releases its indictment against bin Laden, Muhammad Atef and other members of Al Qaeda. 







1999 








Khalid Mohammed Visits Germany 








Khalid Shaikh Mohammed allegedly visits Hamburg, Germany. After Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials suspect he might have met with an Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg. 






June 7, 1999 








Bin Laden Added to FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" List 




Bin Laden is wanted for murder of U.S. nationals outisde the U.S.; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the U.S.; and attack on a federal facility resulting in death.
View the FBI's Most Wanted poster.











Nov. 30, 1999 








Jordan Millennium Plot Discovered 




Jordanian officials intercept a phone conversation between Abu Zubaydah, a senior Al Qaeda lieutenant, and members of a Jordanian cell planning a plot referred to as the day of the millennium. The Jordanians conduct raids and discover explosives and a plan to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman and other sites. 










December 1999 








Alert: A Malaysia Meeting 




The CIA intercepts a phone conversation at a Yemeni house that is an Al Qaeda logistics center, which they had learned about from Mohamed al-'Owhali, who was convicted in the embassy bombing case. The house is owned by Ahmed Al-Hada, a Yemeni citizen.
The callers discuss an upcoming January 2000 meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Officials learn that Khalid Almidhar, a Yemeni citizen believed to be the son-in-law of Al-Hada, and Nawaf Alhazmi, thought to be a Saudi national, will be attending the meeting. Both Almidhar and Alhazmi will later be hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11. 










Dec. 14, 1999 








Ressam Intercepted at Canadian Boarder 




Algerian native Ahmed Ressam is caught entering the U.S. with 130 pounds of explosives at the Canadian border at Port Angeles, Washington. Ressam had links to other Al Qaeda militants and trained in an Afghanistan Al Qaeda camp. Authorities eventually learn his intended target was Los Angeles International Airport. 
Read more about Ahmed Ressam on FRONTLINE's "Trail of a Terrorist" Web site. 










January 2000 








The Malaysia Meeting 




Several individuals linked to Al Qaeda meet in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. At the CIA's request, Malaysian agents photograph the meeting. Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar (both later hijackers on Sept. 11) attend the meeting at the condo of Yazid Sufaat. Tawfiq bin-Atash (AKA "Khallad") -- who once headed bin Laden's bodyguards and would later become a suspect in the attack on the USS Cole -- also attends the meeting. 
It is later reported that Riduan Isamuddin (AKA "Hambali"), a militant Islamic preacher -- who would eventually be suspected of having had a role in the Bojinka plot -- also attends the meeting. Officials later also claim Ramzi bin al-Shibh -- a former roommate of Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta -- was also photographed at the meeting. 
Fahad al-Quso, who is later arrested for his role in the 2000 USS Cole attack, is a suspected bag man who carried money to finance the meeting. After Sept. 11, al-Quso denies having attended the Malaysia meeting. However, he would admit he met at other times with bin Atash, Alhazmi and others who were at the Malaysia meeting.
[Note: All the individuals in the photographs are not be identified by intelligence officials until later, and the importance of this Malaysia meeting would not be known until after the Cole investigation began to focus on bin-Atash. It's unclear at what point the CIA began to recognize the meeting's importance. Sources would later tell FRONTLINE that FBI agents looking into the Cole attack were not fully told about the meeting or shown pictures of those photographed until the summer of 2001. 
Read more about the CIA and FBI communication failure.] 
*2004 Update:* "Hambali" and Tawfiq bin-Atash now in U.S. custody; Fahad Al-Quso now in Yemeni custody - see details.











Jan. 3, 2000 








Attack on USS The Sullivans Fails 




A cell of Yemeni terrorists try bombing the USS The Sullivans in Yemen's Aden Harbor, but fail when their overloaded skiff sinks. Investigators do not discover the attempt on the USS The Sullivans until after the USS Cole had been successfully attacked by the same cell in October of 2000. 







Jan. 15, 2000 








Alhazmi and Almidhar Enter the U.S. 




Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar fly into Los Angeles from Bangkok. A later article in _Newsweek_ reports that the CIA knew that Alhazmi was on the plane, but did not know about Almidhar. Neither individual is tracked once they entered the country. Both become suicide hijackers on Sept. 11. 










April 17, 2000 








FBI Investigates a Flight School 




The Phoenix office of the FBI begins to investigate Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, a Phoenix flight school student suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda. 










August 2000 








Italy Hears about Planes as Weapons 




Between August 2000 and early 2001, Italian investigators begin to record the conversations of Abdulsalam Ali Ali Abdulrahman. According to a later report in the _Los Angeles Times_, in one of the conversations Abdulrahman tells Abdelkader Moahmoud Es Sayad, an Egyptian suspected terrorist, that planes could be used as weapons against the U.S. According to the article, the FBI was aware of the conversations, but did not receive any reference to planes being used as weapons. 










Fall 2000 








Bin al-Shibh Denied Visa 








Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a Yemeni who was Mohamed Atta's former roommate, applies four times for a visa to enter the U.S., but is denied each time. U.S. officials later allege that he was supposed to take part in the Sept. 11 plot, but at the last minute was slotted to be replaced by Zacarias Moussaoui. 











October 2000 








Moussaoui Visits Malaysia 




Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national, visits Malaysia and stays at Yazid Sufaat's condo after Riduan Isamuddin, (AKA "Hambali") asks Sufaat to put up Moussaoui. Sufaat, a Malaysian, also provides Moussaoui with fake identification papers. Also at Hambali's request, a company owned by Sufaat purchases explosives for an attack on foreign embassies and other targets in Southeast Asia. The plot is foiled after Sept. 11, when a videotape of potential targets is found in an Afghanistan safe house. 











Oct. 12, 2000 








Attack on the USS Cole -- More Revelations 








Two men in a skiff pull alongside the American destroyer and detonate an explosive that rips through the hull and kills 17 U.S. sailors. Yemeni authorities quickly capture and start identifying suspects. Among them is Tawfiq bin-Atash, former head of bin Laden's bodyguards. The CIA eventually comes to realize that bin-Atash had been photographed at the earlier Malaysia meeting and begins to reexamine those photographs. A later document released by the British government would claim that Mohamed al-'Owhali, convicted for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings, links two of the Cole suspects to the embassy bombings. 
*2004 Update:* Tawfiq bin-Atash now in U.S. custody - see details.










Dec. 8, 2000 








Cole Links to Bin Laden 




ABC News' John Miller reports authorities have found a number of connections between the Cole attack and Osama bin Laden, including telephone records of calls between the bombers of the Cole and an Al Qaeda cell in East Africa. Yemeni officials arrest Gamal Al Badawi, a suspect who admits he fought with Al Qaeda forces in Bosnia. Fahad al-Quso, in custody, apparently carried $5,000 from an associate of bin Laden to Cole conspirators. Lastly, Miller reports Yemeni authorities suspect Abdul Al-Nassir both organized the Cole attack and also recruited bombers for the attack on the embassies in East Africa in 1998. 
*2004 Update:* The Fahad Al-Quso case - see details.















January 2001 








FAA Warns of Hijackings 




Between January and August of 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration issues 15 advisories to airlines and airports warning that terrorists could try to hijack or destroy American aircraft. 












Jan. 24, 2001 








"The Brothers Going to America" 




Italian authorities record Abdelkader Mahmoud Es Sayed, an imam in Italy, talking about fraudulent documents for the brothers going to America. 















Jan. 25, 2001 








Clarke Warns of Sleeper Cells 




Richard Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism chief, sends a memo to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley warning that Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the U.S. are a major threat. Clarke also advocates targeting Al Qaeda training camps in response to the Cole bombing. 











Jan. 27, 2001 








Cole Links to Al Qaeda Confirmed 




_The Washington Post_ reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells _The Post_, There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack. 











February 2001 








Suspicious Flight School Student 




Instructors at an Arizona flight school become suspicious about a students who speaks English poorly and has limited flying skills. They report him to the FAA. The student, Hani Hanjour, a Saudi, later pilots a plane into the Pentagon on Sept. 11. 











April 2001 








Specific Threat On U.S. Targets 




Washington reportedly receives a specific threat that Al Qaeda may attempt to attack American targets in the Middle East or Europe. 















April 18, 2001 








Another FAA Warning 




This warning to airlines states: The FAA does not have any credible information regarding specific plans by terrorist groups to attack U.S. civil aviation interests... Nevertheless some of the current active groups are known to plan and train for hijackings... The FAA encourages U.S. carriers to demonstrate a high degree of alertness. 















May 11, 2001 








State Dept. Warns Americans Overseas 




The State Department warns that American citizens overseas may be targeted by Al Qaeda. 















May 29, 2001 








East Africa Convictions 




Mohamed al-'Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, Mohammed Saddiq Odeh, and Wadih el-Hage are convicted on charges including conspiracy to kill Americans, which stem from the 1998 embassy bombings. 















June 2001 








Visa Issued to Almidhar 




The State Department re-issues a visa to Khalid Almidhar, a Sept. 11 hijacker who was present at the January 2000 Malaysia meeting. 















June 2001 








FBI Withdraws from Yemen.More FAA Warnings 




Citing a security threat, the FBI pulls investigators out of Yemen. This same month, the FAA issues more warnings to airlines. The NSC's Richard Clarke later tells FRONTLINE that those warnings were absolutely related to Al Qaeda operatives discussing what would eventually become the Sept. 11 attacks. 
By late June, intelligence experts are extremely concerned about the possibility of an imminent attack. 







June 2001 








State Department Closes Embassies 




The U.S. embassies in Senegal and Bahrain are shut down and the State Department issues a new worldwide caution. 














Mid-June 








Attack on Yemen Embassy Thwarted 




Yemeni authorities thwart an attack on the U.S. embassy in Sana, Yemen. 














June 22, 2001 








"Condition Delta" 




U.S. Central and European Command impose Force Protection Condition Delta because of concerns about a terrorist attack. 












June 28, 2001









Attack "Highly Likely" 




National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is warned during an intelligence briefing that an Al Qaeda attack is highly likely. 
















Summer 2001 








FBI Investigators ID Cole Suspects at Malaysia Meeting 




Sources close to the Cole investigation tell FRONTLINE that during the summer of 2001 the CIA informs the FBI about the Malaysia meeting and shows them a picture of one or two of the Cole suspects. The FBI reportedly identifies Cole suspects Tawfiq bin-Atash and Fahad al-Quso. Al-Quso would later deny that he made it to the meeting and claims that the individual in the picture just looked like him. 











July 4, 2001 








Almidhar Re-enters U.S. 




Khalid Almidhar re-enters the U.S. through JFK airport. He later meets with Mohamed Atta. 











July 10, 2001 








Spain Meeting 




Mohamed Atta meets with his former roommate Ramzi bin al-Shibh in Spain along with a number of other Arab men. Only after Sept. 11 do officials discover the meeting and conclude that bin al-Shibh also may have been at the January 2000 Malaysia meeting. 











July 10, 2001 








Request for Flight School Investigation 




The FBI's Phoenix office sends a memo to FBI headquarters requesting officials initiate a nationwide investigation of flight schools. The memo warns that bin Laden supporters may be attending flight schools in the United States. 







July 18, 2001 








Ressam Convicted 




The FBI warns that the conviction of Ahmed Ressam for the millennium plot to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles airport could lead to retaliatory terrorist attacks. 











July 31, 2001 








Another FAA Alert 




The FAA issues yet another warning to airlines that terrorists could be planning to hijack American airlines. 










August 2001 








Bin Laden Operatives Return to Afghanistan 




According to a later report by the British government, In August and early September [2001] close associates of bin Laden were warned to return to Afghanistan from other parts of the world by Sept. 10. 















Aug. 16, 2001 








FAA Warns of Weapons from Everyday Objects 




The FAA warns airlines that terrorists may use weapons modified from everyday objects. 








Aug. 16, 2001 








Moussaoui Arrested 




Minneapolis FBI agents pick up and arrest Zacarias Moussaoui on immigration charges for overstaying his visa, but agents are concerned he could be a terrorist. The Minneapolis office tries unsuccessfully to secure either a criminal search warrant or an intelligence warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings. After Sept. 11, a federal indictment would claim that Moussaoui was in possession of two knives, a flight manual for a 747-400, fighting gloves and shin guards, and an aviation radio. 
















Aug. 27, 2001 








CIA Cables FBI Names of Almidhar and Alhazmi 




The CIA cables the FBI, warning that Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi are inside the U.S. and are suspected terrorists because of their presence at the January 2000 Malaysia meeting. 















Aug. 28, 2001 








French Brief FBI on Moussaoui 




They say Moussaoui has been linked to Al Qaeda. 















Sept. 5, 2001 








Bin al-Shibh Leaves for Afghanistan 




Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the former roommate of Mohamed Atta, who had attended both the July meeting in Spain and the January 2000 Malaysia meeting, leaves Germany for Afghanistan. 






Sept. 11, 2001 








Sept. 11 Attacks 








Hijackers alleged to be members of Al Qaeda take control of four airliners and crash two into the World Trade Center, and one into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked plane crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. The attacks kill more than 3,000 people. 










Post-Sept. 11, 2001 








Postscript: Links to 1995 Bojinka Plotter; al-Shibh Captured 




U.S. investigators discover evidence they believe links Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- wanted and still at large for his role in the 1995 Bojinka plot -- to the Sept. 11 hijackings. A few weeks later, U.S. officials say they believe that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the operations chief of Al Qaeda. It is also later reported that the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone conversations between Mohamed Atta and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed before Sept. 11, but had not properly translated them at the time. Officials quoted in one story refused to describe the content of those conversations. 
On Sept. 11, 2002, Ramzi bin al-Shibh is captured by Pakistani police in a shootout in Karachi. He is currently in U.S. custody and, according to a U.S. Defense Department official, is providing valuable information. Bin al-Shibh is believed to have knowledge of Al Qaeda operations in Europe and Southeast Asia. 
*2004 Update:* Khalid Shaikh Mohammed now in U.S. custody - see details.




If you guys are not the most obnixious people in this forum then it must be me










you have let your country and your people down.


----------



## Keenly (Nov 4, 2009)

i laugh at your pitiful strawman argument


talking about events that have nothing to do with 9/11

but ill humor you

see that little dot up there that says london?


on 07/07/05 3 subway trains and a double decker bus were suicide bombed


the explosion blew the floors of the subway trains UP, (therefore, using deductive reasoning, its obvious the explosions came from UNDER the train)


and, 2 "suicide" bombers survived to later be shot that day




how about this big?



*American Airlines Flight 11*
Boeing 767-223ER. Fuel capacity 24,000 gallons
Seating Capacity 181
81 passengers (including hijackers)
9 flight attendants, 2 pilots​

*Alleged hijackers:* ​​​

Original hijacker list Final named hijackers Mohamed Atta
Adnan Bukhari
Ameer Bukhari
Abdul Alomari
Amer Kamfar Mohamed Atta
_Waleed M. Alshehri - Alive_
_Wail M. Alshehri - Alive_
_Abdulaziz Alomari - Alive_
Satam M.A. Al Suqami​​

_*Full details*_​​​
​

Scheduled flight: Boston - Los Angeles
Flight departed 07:59 a.m.
Crashed into WTC 1 08:46 a.m.​






​
American Airlines Flight 11, Reexamined​​


*United Airlines Flight 175*
Boeing 767-222. Fuel capacity 24,000 gallons
Seating Capacity 181
56 passengers (including hijackers)
7 flight attendants, 2 pilots​

*Alleged hijackers:* ​

Marwan Al-Shehhi
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
_Mohand Alshehri - Alive_​
_*Full details* _​​
​​
​

Scheduled flight: Boston - Los Angeles
Flight departed 08:14 a.m.
Crashed into WTC2 09:03 a.m.​






​ 

*American Airlines Flight 77*
Boeing 757-223. Fuel capacity 11,000 gallons
Seating Capacity 200
58 passengers (including hijackers)
4 flight attendants, 2 pilots​

*Alleged hijackers:* ​

Original hijacker list (ph)
[CNN 9/14/2001] Final named hijackers Cammid Al-Madar
Majar Mokhed
Salem Al Hazni
Nawar Al Hazni
Mosear Caned Khalid Almihdhar - Alive?
Majed Moqed
_Salem Alhazmi - Alive_
Nawaf Alhazmi
Hani Hanjour 

_*Full details*_​​​
​

Scheduled flight: Washington to Los Angeles 
Flight departed 08:20 a.m.
Crashed into the Pentagon 09:38 a.m.​






Dulles Airport is ~20 miles from the Pentagon. Why would terrorists intent on hitting the Pentagon chance a round trip of hundreds of miles?​​ 

*United Airlines Flight 93*
Boeing 757-222. Fuel capacity 11,000 gallons
Seating Capacity 200
38 passengers (including hijackers)
5 flight attendants, 2 pilots​

*Alleged hijackers:* ​

_Saeed Alghamdi - Alive_
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
_Ahmed Alnami - Alive_
Ziad Samir Jarrah​​
​
​




the "suicide" bombers are still alive........... explain it.... you cant


fact of the matter is, 9/11 was an inside job, and so was 07/07 in london, theirs is so much more obvious though



Watch the 07/07 ripple effect goes into great detail with routes, police schedules, VIN numbers, train schedules, bus schedules, a well as news clips and eyewitness statements that make it pretty fucking obvious the british government did the same thing ours did


----------



## Katatawnic (Nov 4, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> didn't mean to come off crass, sorry.
> 
> something bad happened in front of my house the other morning. it's got me troubled.  not anything that sharing could help though. i'll try to behave.


I took it as you being facetious rather than crass... no worries. Now, behave! 

Hope the troubles have become less troublesome!


----------



## Big P (Nov 4, 2009)

so then your saying only the 9/11 attacks were false flag attacks by our government and all the rest were real?


oh wait but you say the london ones were fake too,


so are you saying only the 9/11 attacks and the london attacks are false flag attacks and the rest of them starting in 1989 when you were probably not even born yet, those were real?


you need to get the lies your believing straight before trying to re explain them to us.


keen you seem like a good guy you should pick a conspiricy thoery that does not disgrace your country and put you in the column very close to traitor or even worse.

atleast a traiter uses real facts to betray his country. 


i cant believe me and Arab Immigrant who wasnt even born in the USA is the one who is in here having to teach you supposed red blooded naturally born Americans of your unforgivable tretchery to the country in which your fathers and grandfathers graves reside.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 4, 2009)

Big P said:


> keep telling yourself that gordon,
> 
> it is he who dismisses or under estimates his enemy who is the real fool.
> 
> ...


lol I wasn't trying to be racist.. They live in sand... they probably have sand up their butt. I'm sorry (?) But I totally agree with all the "racist" stuff.

However, back to the Al qaeda. I don't believe in it. 



> "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda". So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, "The Toilet"?


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fakealqaeda.html

Take a gander. 

I bookmarked a ton of stuff on my old laptop, but it crashed.  

Just remember, there are 2 sides to every story.


----------



## Katatawnic (Nov 4, 2009)

Interesting. I learned that Al Qaeda means "the base" (or something to that effect). Nothing in your quote from that article was cited. Can you get the literal translation from somewhere that can be cited before believing, and asserting, that this definition is correct?

Big P, being an Arab immigrant, I'm sure you could translate "Al Qaeda" correctly... correct?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 4, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> Interesting. I learned that Al Qaeda means "the base" (or something to that effect). Nothing in your quote from that article was cited. Can you get the literal translation from somewhere that can be cited before believing, and asserting, that this definition is correct?
> 
> Big P, being an Arab immigrant, I'm sure you could translate "Al Qaeda" correctly... correct?


lol I quoted that because i thought it was hilarious.. that wasn't the straw that broke the camels back as far as me not believing in al qaeda. It could mean "super badass", idc. However, i would like to know the meaning of it if Big P is able to translate for us.

BTW, i was looking at big p's time line of al qaeda and saw FBI's most wanted on there. Where is osama bin laden on that list?


----------



## Big P (Nov 4, 2009)

it means "seat" or "the seat" "where we sit" "the base"

al = the
 
Q-a-e-d-a = "seat"

O-o-q-u-o-d = "sit" or "sit down"


----------



## Big P (Nov 4, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> lol I quoted that because i thought it was hilarious.. that wasn't the straw that broke the camels back as far as me not believing in al qaeda. It could mean "super badass", idc. However, i would like to know the meaning of it if Big P is able to translate for us.
> 
> BTW, i was looking at big p's time line of al qaeda and saw FBI's most wanted on there. Where is osama bin laden on that list?


 



ya and this guy is just a cuddly little teddy bear right?









see that gun hes holding, came out and american patriots cold dead hands



wanna know what this guy did and splashed it all over the world,

heres the same guy cutting nick bergs head off with a kitchen knife while he screams like in a female pitch in agony



















you know this man? this man who ran a terrorist network in Iraq during the time saddam hussain was in power

it was called *ansar al islam*. he came to iraq wounded from afghanistan many years before 9/11/01 and got treatment at one of saddams hospitols for the privileged government offials

he then headed a terroist group in saddams iraq


*this terrorist group operated freely in Iraq*


after the invasion started this man abu musab al-zarqawi "came out" and announced that he was the leader of al-qaeda in Iraq killing us service men by the dozens and killing thousands of Iraqis, tortures, behedings, and ied's



pleople unlike most in this thread served thier country with honor and killed this disgusting pig




















now why am I telling you all this?






the moral of the story is we were attacked 

we attacked back


and we a bleeding them dry,
























wishing and pretending it did not happen isnt gonna help you


I know its scary but we will pull through it dont worry


.


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 4, 2009)

FreeLeaf said:


> These types of people try and exploit a true American tragedy because of their hatred towards those that disagree with them on political issues. Now I am not referring to your average Democrat, I am referring to the true wack jobs. The people who's hatred is so intense that it drives them to become a 9/11 truther.


you just drop by, stereotype people and walk away ... TRUE AMERICAN 
well you wont find the wack jobs here ... just regular folks , who ask simple questions , that no one but the government can answer , yet the government will not even consider. So on that note we DEMAND A REAL INVESTIGATION , will it ever happen .. who knows but i am not gonna stop spreading the word until it does.


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 4, 2009)

P why not u answer the simple questions then.... oh u skipped over that part and then started calling people "conspiracy theorist" again. but since you seem to know what happened? you could at least attempt ? or you could at least admit u dont know excactly what happened that day, like the rest of us. unless you truly believe the official report and if so , this is the wrong thread for you.


----------



## Big P (Nov 4, 2009)

wy



i know what happend really, we attacked iraq because saddam was still plotting against us he even atemped to kill Bush Sr. in Kuwait this is common knowledge even in the arab world, if you dont trust the "media"



*i want you my friend to listen to sombody who knows what they are talking about for once*


*Do you know what also happend on Sept 11th?*


*it was not in 2001, but somting unforgivable happened to sombody on September 11, in a year before 2001 *


I bet you couldnt find out if you tried so I will simply show you


*On September 11,* *1990* President George Bush *(Sr.)* made a dramatic speech to Congress, outlining the US position in the Kuwait crisis, and the preliminary steps the US was taking towards the Gulf War. 



*Exactly 11 years later to the day, on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked America.*


the real truth my friend, the real truth


so lets recap, On September 11, 1990 an american president declared he would attack saddam for invading kuwait and kick saddam out,


*saddam went nuts,* no body fucks with a guy like saddam and gets away with it. trust me on that one






here is our violent friend showcasing some the lilly white hostages he held in kuwait right before the invasion







here is another evidence of his never letting a wrong go unpunished, he instructed all his retreating troops to blow up every kuwaiti oil well they could find. 


from then on coupled with the no fly zones and the constant pestering of saddam by the usa and Great Britton, our freind saddam did not just sit idolly by lol you think a man like this just sits there and takes it??

its just not how a typical arab is, specially one who must be respected, he wouldnt just have chilled specially a meglomaniac brutal dictator like saddam. (examples above)


he was a very smart man. this was well known in the arab world and he was feared greatly even in the surrounding counties


he even tried to plot a hit on Bush sinior when he visted kuwait *even after he wasnt even president anymore!! saddam was still trying to kill this guy that tottaly fucked him!!!!!!!!*



anyway his plot failed and bush senior lived on


now say your saddam, you got the weapons inspectors up your ass, the no fly zones got US aircraft flying in you airspace, all day, you worried your enemies think you are weak


whats the best way to fight someone more poweful than you where you can really hurt them badly with out harming a hair on your head?


anyone care to answer?



you arrange or rather collude with any of thier other enemies and assist them in perpetrating the death blow. all it takes is 1 meeting which has actually been documented between the head of Iraq inteligence at the time i think it was in south america or somthing at an al queda meeting


but this wasnt enough for saddam, after all, what good is revenge without the satisfaction of letting your enemy know it was you who did it, but at the same time make it not provable?


so he slipped up and got alqueda to arrange september 11th as the date, 

once the administration found this out and coupled with the ineligence I outlined in the above post about *ansar al islam* just being a cover name for *al-queda in Iraq* and im sure some other top secret eveidence like that meeting in south america 


we moved on him and invaded





*now thats a real conspiricy for you guys, not this childish whinny imbecilec*

*inside job shit,* 



well come to logic my friends:




*Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (September 11, 1990)*

*George H. W. Bush*


"It is Iraq against the world." Bush describes Saddam Hussein's actions in the Persian Gulf as "inhumane aggression." He demands that Iraq pull out of Kuwait.
This transcript contains the published text of the speech, not the actual words spoken. There may be some differences between the transcript and the audio/video content.






*Transcript:*







Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank you very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2d, following negotiations and promises by Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression. 

At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And they're doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment's notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In the face of danger, they're brave, they're well-trained, and dedicated. 

A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for peace. But Wade also wrote, "I am proud of my country and its firm stance against inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my country." Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Powell; the Chiefs here tonight; our commander in the Persian Gulf, General Schwartzkopf; and the men and women of the Department of Defense. What a magnificent job you all are doing. And thank you very, very much from a grateful people. I wish I could say that their work is done. But we all know it's not. 

So, if there ever was a time to put country before self and patriotism before party, the time is now. And let me thank all Americans, especially those here in this Chamber tonight, for your support for our armed forces and for their mission. That support will be even more important in the days to come. So, tonight I want to talk to you about what's at stakewhat we must do together to defend civilized values around the world and maintain our economic strength at home. 

Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait's legitimate government must be restored. The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured. And American citizens abroad must be protected. These goals are not ours alone. They've been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world. 

As you know, I've just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President Gorbachev. And I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq's threat to peace. Let me quote: "We are united in the belief that Iraq's aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors." Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun. 

We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objectivea new world ordercan emerge: a new erafreer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come. 

The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interestsand we will. America and the world must support the rule of lawand we will. America and the world must stand up to aggressionand we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated. 

Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the Earth. We do not exaggerate. Nor do we exaggerate when we say Saddam Hussein will fail. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighborsneighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won't. 

Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability. Let no one doubt our staying power. We will stand by our friends. One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this fundamental truth. From the outset, acting hand in hand with others, we've sought to fashion the broadest possible international response to Iraq's aggression. The level of world cooperation and condemnation of Iraq is unprecedented. Armed forces from countries spanning four continents are there at the request of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to deter and, if need be, to defend against attack. Moslems and non-Moslems, Arabs and non-Arabs, soldiers from many nations stand shoulder to shoulder, resolute against Saddam Hussein's ambitions. 

We can now point to five United Nations Security Council resolutions that condemn Iraq's aggression. They call for Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal, the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government, and categorically reject Iraq's cynical and self-serving attempt to annex Kuwait. Finally, the United Nations has demanded the release of all foreign nationals held hostage against their will and in contravention of international law. It is a mockery of human decency to call these people "guests." They are hostages, and the whole world knows it. 

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a dependable ally, said it all: "We do not bargain over hostages. We will not stoop to the level of using human beings as bargaining chips ever." Of course, of course, our hearts go out to the hostages and to their families. But our policy cannot change, and it will not change. America and the world will not be blackmailed by this ruthless policy. 

We're now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders. We owe much to the outstanding leadership of Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar. The United Nations is backing up its words with action. The Security Council has imposed mandatory economic sanctions on Iraq, designed to force Iraq to relinquish the spoils of its illegal conquest. The Security Council has also taken the decisive step of authorizing the use of all means necessary to ensure compliance with these sanctions. Together with our friends and allies, ships of the United States Navy are today patrolling Mideast waters. They've already intercepted more than 700 ships to enforce the sanctions. Three regional leaders I spoke with just yesterday told me that these sanctions are working. Iraq is feeling the heat. We continue to hope that Iraq's leaders will recalculate just what their aggression has cost them. They are cut off from world trade, unable to sell their oil. And only a tiny fraction of goods gets through. 

The communique with President Gorbachev made mention of what happens when the embargo is so effective that children of Iraq literally need milk or the sick truly need medicine. Then, under strict international supervision that guarantees the proper destination, then food will be permitted. 

At home, the material cost of our leadership can be steep. That's why Secretary of State Baker and Treasury Secretary Brady have met with many world leaders to underscore that the burden of this collective effort must be shared. We are prepared to do our share and more to help carry that load; we insist that others do their share as well. 

The response of most of our friends and allies has been good. To help defray costs, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAEthe United Arab Emirateshave pledged to provide our deployed troops with all the food and fuel they need. Generous assistance will also be provided to stalwart front-line nations, such as Turkey and Egypt. I am also heartened to report that this international response extends to the neediest victims of this conflictthose refugees. For our part, we've contributed $28 million for relief efforts. This is but a portion of what is needed. I commend, in particular, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and several European nations who have joined us in this purely humanitarian effort. 

There's an energy-related cost to be borne as well. Oil-producing nations are already replacing lost Iraqi and Kuwaiti output. More than half of what was lost has been made up. And we're getting superb cooperation. If producers, including the United States, continue steps to expand oil and gas production, we can stabilize prices and guarantee against hardship. Additionally, we and several of our allies always have the option to extract oil from our strategic petroleum reserves if conditions warrant. As I've pointed out before, conservation efforts are essential to keep our energy needs as low as possible. And we must then take advantage of our energy sources across the board: coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear. Our failure to do these things has made us more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. Finally, let no one even contemplate profiteering from this crisis. We will not have it. 

I cannot predict just how long it will take to convince Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Sanctions will take time to have their full intended effect. We will continue to review all options with our allies, but let it be clear: we will not let this aggression stand. 

Our interest, our involvement in the Gulf is not transitory. It predated Saddam Hussein's aggression and will survive it. Long after all our troops come homeand we all hope it's soon, very soonthere will be a lasting role for the United States in assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf. Our role then: to deter future aggression. Our role is to help our friends in their own self-defense. And something else: to curb the proliferation of chemical, biological, ballistic missile and, above all, nuclear technologies. 

Let me also make clear that the United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our quarrel is with Iraq's dictator and with his aggression. Iraq will not be permitted to annex Kuwait. That's not a threat, that's not a boast, that's just the way it's going to be. 

Our ability to function effectively as a great power abroad depends on how we conduct ourselves at home. Our economy, our Armed Forces, our energy dependence, and our cohesion all determine whether we can help our friends and stand up to our foes. For America to lead, America must remain strong and vital. Our world leadership and domestic strength are mutual and reinforcing; a woven piece, strongly bound as Old Glory. To revitalize our leadership, our leadership capacity, we must address our budget deficitnot after election day, or next year, but now. 

Higher oil prices slow our growth, and higher defense costs would only make our fiscal deficit problem worse. That deficit was already greater than it should have beena projected $232 billion for the coming year. It mustit willbe reduced. 

To my friends in Congress, together we must act this very monthbefore the next fiscal year begins on October 1stto get America's economic house in order. The Gulf situation helps us realize we are more economically vulnerable than we ever should be. Americans must never again enter any crisis, economic or military, with an excessive dependence on foreign oil and an excessive burden of Federal debt. 

Most Americans are sick and tired of endless battles in the Congress and between the branches over budget matters. It is high time we pulled together and get the job done right. It's up to us to straighten this out. This job has four basic parts. First, the Congress should, this month, within a budget agreement, enact growth-oriented tax measuresto help avoid recession in the short term and to increase savings, investment, productivity, and competitiveness for the longer term. These measures include extending incentives for research and experimentation; expanding the use of IRA's for new homeowners; establishing tax-deferred family savings accounts; creating incentives for the creation of enterprise zones and initiatives to encourage more domestic drilling; and, yes, reducing the tax rate on capital gains. 

And second, the Congress should, this month, enact a prudent multiyear defense program, one that reflects not only the improvement in East-West relations but our broader responsibilities to deal with the continuing risks of outlaw action and regional conflict. Even with our obligations in the Gulf, a sound defense budget can have some reduction in real terms; and we're prepared to accept that. But to go beyond such levels, where cutting defense would threaten our vital margin of safety, is something I will never accept. The world is still dangerous. And surely, that is now clear. Stability's not secure. American interests are far reaching. Interdependence has increased. The consequences of regional instability can be global. This is no time to risk America's capacity to protect her vital interests. 

And third, the Congress should, this month, enact measures to increase domestic energy production and energy conservation in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. These measures should include my proposals to increase incentives for domestic oil and gas exploration, fuel-switching, and to accelerate the development of the Alaskan energy resources without damage to wildlife. As you know, when the oil embargo was imposed in the early 1970's, the United States imported almost 6 million barrels of oil a day. This year, before the Iraqi invasion, U.S. imports had risen to nearly 8 million barrels per day. And we'd moved in the wrong direction. And now we must act to correct that trend. 

And fourth, the Congress should, this month, enact a 5-year program to reduce the projected debt and deficits by $500 billionthat's by half a trillion dollars. And if, with the Congress, we can develop a satisfactory program by the end of the month, we can avoid the ax of sequesterdeep across-the-board cuts that would threaten our military capacity and risk substantial domestic disruption. I want to be able to tell the American people that we have truly solved the deficit problem. And for me to do that, a budget agreement must meet these tests: It must include the measures I've recommended to increase economic growth and reduce dependence on foreign oil. It must be fair. All should contribute, but the burden should not be excessive for any one group of programs or people. It must address the growth of government's hidden liabilities. It must reform the budget process and, further, it must be real. 

I urge Congress to provide a comprehensive 5-year deficit reduction program to me as a complete legislative package, with measures to assure that it can be fully enforced. America is tired of phony deficit reduction or promise-now, save-later plans. It is time for a program that is credible and real. And finally, to the extent that the deficit reduction program includes new revenue measures, it must avoid any measure that would threaten economic growth or turn us back toward the days of punishing income tax rates. That is one path we should not head down again. 

I have been pleased with recent progress, although it has not always seemed so smooth. But now it's time to produce. I hope we can work out a responsible plan. But with or without agreement from the budget summit, I ask both Houses of the Congress to allow a straight up-or-down vote on a complete $500-billion deficit reduction package not later than September 28. If the Congress cannot get me a budget, then Americans will have to face a tough, mandated sequester. I'm hopeful, in fact, I'm confident that the Congress will do what it should. And I can assure you that we in the executive branch will do our part. 

In the final analysis, our ability to meet our responsibilities abroad depends upon political will and consensus at home. This is never easy in democracies, for we govern only with the consent of the governed. And although free people in a free society are bound to have their differences, Americans traditionally come together in times of adversity and challenge. 

Once again, Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful goodbye with their families before leaving for a strange and distant shore. At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. That's why they sweat and toil in the sand and the heat and the sun. If they can come together under such adversity, if old adversaries like the Soviet Union and the United States can work in common cause, then surely we who are so fortunate to be in this great ChamberDemocrats, Republicans, liberals, conservativescan come together to fulfill our responsibilities here. 

Thank you. Good night. And God bless the United States of America.




damn im good


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 4, 2009)

[youtube]MZ86t4hStxU[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Nov 4, 2009)

damn thats a good song, illustrates our futile lives quite well


why do I feel like making a gin & tonic all of a sudden?


----------



## Katatawnic (Nov 5, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> lol I quoted that because i thought it was hilarious.. that wasn't the straw that broke the camels back as far as me *not believing in al qaeda*.


My fiance is an Army medic, and just returned from a U.S. base/camp near Tikrit, Iraq on July 31 after a year of being assigned to convoy security. He has no doubt whatsoever of Al Qaeda's existence, nor the heinous things they do. He also met *many* Iraqi citizens that used to be a part of Al Qaeda, but left when they figured out that the U.S. isn't the evil entity they were taught we are, and are now intent on bringing Al Qaeda to their knees and out of their country. These people would be more than happy to discuss the "non-existence" of Al Qaeda.



Big P said:


> it means "seat" or "the seat" "where we sit" "the base"
> 
> Q-a-e-d-a = "seat"
> 
> O-o-q-u-o-d = "sit" or "sit down"


When jfgordon1 posted about "the seat," I was thinking that would be equivalent to "the base." It made sense to me... I took 3.5 years of Spanish in high school, and I'll never forget how it was instilled in us that you don't translate just literal words between languages; you translate ideas/concepts. 



Big P said:


> pleople unlike most in this thread served thier country with honor and killed this disgusting pig


Sadly, too many want so badly to point out how atrocious the U.S. is that they fail (refuse) to see what's really going on. I can't count how many people have told me that my fiance, a medic at that, is nothing more than a hired murderer. Oh yeah, and he's just a brainwashed zombie doing what he's told, and therefore he can't know what he believes in, nor right from wrong, etc.


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 5, 2009)

ok this has been over 30 pages of skipping questions and changing subjects. RICK they NEED you! big p , thank u come again.
kat... i would never call your family a murderer or a brainwashed whatever...... This is above and beyond him or me . I have family in the force too, She is a "high rank" person and she cant answer our questions ..... so we continue to DEMAND A REAL INVESTIGATION. 
i am sorry u guys just cant handle that .
DO you guys realize how EASY it would be to shut folks like me up? i guess not.........
heres one: "flight 93 crashed and we cleaned it up before anyone showed up" <-- its THAT simple , how could i argue that (legitimately)
BUT that is just one of a bunch of questions, a minor one at that. 
You guys keep avoiding the questions and we will wait for rick to do your work , AGAIN


----------



## Big P (Nov 5, 2009)

wy i already have 2 children and have enough headache trying to knock some sense into them, i do not have the time or inclination to sift through the lies and undocumented gibberish you guys pull off the internet and post in here, 

just be content in the fact that only about 1% of people here think you guys are right. 99% know you guys are fools



just like you have not responded to any of my obviously clear and concise posts backed up with real evidence, im not sure how you think I need to reply to your obtuse posts of an ignoramus child 


all you guys got is a bunch of regurgitated retarded hearsay from about a 1 million clowns on the internet who have an axe to grind, its funny because almost everything you guys post is not even factually correct, if would actually research it you would know that. 

and research is not typing something in Google and reading it on one of the millions of conspiracy sights that bleed fools like you of your money any way they can.



I have no axe, only a rifle and an American flag.


you have an axe, and everyone teaching you to betray your country has an axe also


just like those al queda recruits in Iraq that finally realized that al queda was lying to them and America was cool

at least they were smart enough to realize they were being tricked and treated as pawns, 

that is all you are a simple pawn in a game of chess being played by retards, 

your like the dumbest kid in the special class, at least the other guys are smart enough to make their own websites, you just visit these tards and then parrot what they say


----------



## londonfog (Nov 5, 2009)

this thread is long


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 5, 2009)

Big P said:


> pleople unlike most in this thread served thier country with honor and killed this disgusting pig
> 
> .


I served in 3 theaters of WAR and got shot at and had to shoot at others. I spent 3 years in the Middle East before 911. And your gonna come in here and try to say that the "Truthers" Are the ones who dunit AND that none of them ever served their Country. PHUCK YOU!!!


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 5, 2009)

Big P said:


> just be content in the fact that only about 1% of people here think you guys are right. 99% know you guys are fools


Actually polls show that the Majority of People believe it was someone other than Al Qaeda who did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls

So looks like your anecdotal evidence has been proven wrong, not only by facts, but also by the very poll's that have been taken on this site. The majority of people do not believe the official story, so you people that do believe the government version are the ones who are actually in the minority.

So lets change your false statement to be true shall we?

just be content in the fact that only about 54% of people here think you guys are right. 46% know you guys are fools



to Recap: The official version of 911 is a sham, they are hiding something, we want to have a new investigation to find out the truth. The government officials who conducted the investigation have come forward and say its all a lie, but you continue to believe the lie, even after they tell you its BS.


----------



## Big P (Nov 5, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> I served in 3 theaters of WAR and got shot at and had to shoot at others. I spent 3 years in the Middle East before 911. And your gonna come in here and try to say that the "Truthers" Are the ones who dunit AND that none of them ever served their Country. PHUCK YOU!!!


I dont care if you gave mouth to mouth to mother teresa, its doesnt give you the right to state as fact that your nation perpetrated an attack on its own people with zero! exaclty zero! real evidence. while completly vindicating the actual killers and rapists of your country, great job soldier


I for one am glad you are not in the service anymore. Im not sure you really belonged there in the first place. Timothy Mcvee also served his country. 


you by spouting this shit all over the place get our soldiers killed! thats right the ones you served with so bravely get killed when you spew these lies.

i mean fuck,

ill be god damned if i get sent over there and lose my eye sight cuz some redneck arab loser detonated a make shift bomb because of all this anti american propeganda you guys are spewing straight from the horses or our nations mouth!


you want a cookie for serving your country? pls men do that everyday without one complaint without asking for anything in return & without even returning at all, be glad you made it out ok

reminds me of the people who are like look look im taking care of my kids for once.

thats what you should be doing in the first place, not just serving your country and then speading propeganda around for the enemy!!!! 

and then you got the nerve to get all flustered when no one wants to pat you on the back for saying anti american, blame america first bullshit lies that put our current soilders in the feild in more danger?

your right we need more guys like you in the field


----------



## Big P (Nov 5, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> Actually polls show that the Majority of People believe it was someone other than Al Qaeda who did it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls
> 
> ...


 

your an ass clown why didnt you post this disclamer in your own fucking link!


*The size, form and quality of polls naturally varies considerably*, *as does the range and specificity of questions asked.* They range from large, formal polls such as those conducted by Zogby, *to smaller, informal polls of limited scope, and unscientific internet polls.* The questions here relate specifically to doubts about the mainstream account, and in all cases were part of a group of questions dealing with wider issues,* usually of a political nature.*


so there you go lieing again to hate on your country more. if you did a real offical poll asking the american people if 9/11 was an inside job by the US governemt the vast majority would say no & hell no!!!!!!


here is a glaring example of all your guys bullshit statistics and bullshit "evidence"

hows that for showing evidence of your complete lack of real evidence



they actually have a real word for this guys its called:



"Propeganda"


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 5, 2009)

Big P said:


> your an ass clown why didnt you post this disclamer in your own fucking link!
> 
> 
> *The size, form and quality of polls naturally varies considerably*, *as does the range and specificity of questions asked.* They range from large, formal polls such as those conducted by Zogby, *to smaller, informal polls of limited scope, and unscientific internet polls.* The questions here relate specifically to doubts about the mainstream account, and in all cases were part of a group of questions dealing with wider issues,* usually of a political nature.*
> ...



LOL and you go and say in your own post that a ZOGBY poll is a large and formal poll. LOL you do realize that the link I provided is for a ZOGBY poll right? 

Now go and call me by some other name instead of ass clown, something more like "The Defeater of Big P dumbed down logic" or Maybe just " A helluva lot smarter than Big P"!! Ass clown just doesn't have the right ring to it.

Oh and its spelled P R O P A G A N D A.


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 5, 2009)

Big P said:


> I dont care if you gave mouth to mouth to mother teresa, its doesnt give you the right to state as fact that your nation perpetrated an attack on its own people with zero! exaclty zero! real evidence. while completly vindicating the actual killers and rapists of your country, great job soldier
> 
> 
> I for one am glad you are not in the service anymore. Im not sure you really belonged there in the first place. Timothy Mcvee also served his country.
> ...


Well if you wanna get nasty about the personal attacks, believe me I can come back with alot better than what you have, but Im not going to stoop to the lower than a rock level you are at to do it.

Have a good day Big P!


----------



## Big P (Nov 5, 2009)

drama we are both men, i wouldnt be this rude obviously in public. but the internet allows one to be harsher than usual and I find it fun and I think many on here do to,

but you did say phuck you to me or somthing like that. and it hurt my feewings


and if you linked the zogby poll then i will go back and check it out and declare myself the true assclown


1 sec ill check it but it better not have some loaded wording and be up to date


brb


----------



## Big P (Nov 5, 2009)

all i can find is this, pls link me to what zogby poll you speak of


Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure



but the above poll does not ask if you think the attackes were perpetrated by our own govenment

it asks if people think there was a cover up

and there would be a high probabilty things were covered up. but not because it was our government who did the actual attacks

more likey cover ups would be to make it look like the us government wasnt asleep at the wheel

or like if they covered up another attack that we didnt know about so there wouldnt be mass fear or more markets crashing


so I still stick to my story, i dont see where you have proven me wrong infact this poll in your own posted link says following:







only 15% think that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by our government,

the vast majorty say it was either al queda or they just dont know




so there you big jerk





however about the cover up have you noticed for the past 7 years there have been so many train derailments its not even funny,

i think those may all be attacks that the government has been covering up as accidents


like TWA Fight 800

and the oklahoma city bombing where they said it was just MCvee that did it, it was actually him and terrorist possibly iraqi, check this out that I stumbled upon



*December 1989* 








Oklahoma Meeting of Future Terrorists 




At a conference of Muslims held* in Oklahoma City*, Wadih el-Hage, a U.S. citizen later convicted in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings trial, meets with Egyptian Mahmud Abuhalima, who is later convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Abuhalima later tries to buy guns from el-Hage.
For more details on el-Hage's Al Qaeda connections, read FRONTLINE's "A Portrait of Wadih el-Hage". 

The *Oklahoma City bombing* occurred on April 19, 1995 


Mcvee served in desert storm i wonder if they got him to turn somhow.


----------



## Keenly (Nov 5, 2009)

"nuh uh your poll is wrong"



"if you made a REAL poll, you would lose cause your wrong wrong wrong"


your argument is not only childish but lacks any merit whatsoever



here you have the numbers staring you in the face, and you still can not accept it...

you cannot accept being the minority, your brain is short circuting, and your posting nothing now...

just take a couple days to sleep on that poll.... let it sink in

becuase that poll is a REAL poll....and you cant pick and choose which evidence you want to acknowledge and which evidence you feel like deeming "false" or "not good enough"


its a damn good thing your not a judge

and in response to your late pie chart, your STILL in the minority.... so stop stating that 99% of america is so stupid





oklahoma city bombing? another inside job

for several reasons.... 1 truck blows a building in half, with the explosion going in a 50 ish degree angle in ONE direction.....


come on.... you seriously beleive that?


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 5, 2009)

Big P said:


> *December 1989*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all that poll is old ... and who the hell does a Zogby poll or any other corporate poll? Anybody on this forum ever done one? ... anybody on this forum know anyone that has done one?
I find the internet polls much more creditable because I have participated and I know others that have ... 
The poll done here indicate you are wrong ... RIU 911 Poll
... here's another one ...
RIU poll

and of course you ignored this video I posted way back on page 181 ... but I'll post it again to further prove you are wrong ... of course like all deniers you will disregard this post as you did the other, proving you wrong.
[youtube]nlPweD6R3Cc[/youtube]

So as with the rest of the deniers ... you are wrong. 

Nothing new there ... and Al Qaeda is fake ... those attacks you posted probably were done by the same people behind the false flag 911 attack. For all we know those "terrorists" you have posted could very well be working for the same people that are paying blackwater.

Now ... on to the 911 news

http://www.bushstole04.com/911/60_page.htm9/11 Research 60-Page Summary
9/11 Research 60-Page Summary
Verifiable Research on 9/11
Summary of 9/11 Research Compiled by Paul Thompson
9/11 was one of the most pivotal days in world history. Its impact will be felt for years to come. You owe it to yourself to go beyond the sound bites and the simplified official story. This is an extremely complicated story with numerous players and motives. Not everything makes sense or fits neatly together. It's a story full of espionage, deceit, and lies. But if there are forces out there tricking us, they can only succeed if we, the general public, remain ignorant and passive.


Another video ... check it if you can ... 


[youtube]6hPP3xQtTfc[/youtube]



[youtube]5NdWiCPrOyI[/youtube]

Chomsky's comments on the 9/11 Truth movement are full of surprising statements and bizarre non sequiturs. Find out more about the ways in which Chomsky is attempting to limit dissent by dismissing the concerns of a growing percentage of the population who no longer believe the official government-approved conspiracy theory about 9/11.




Of course the deniers will ignore this too, or dismiss it.


http://www.bushstole04.com/fakewar/how_our_governments.htmHow our governments use terrorism to control us
The sponsorship of terrorism by western governments, targeting their own populations, has been a taboo subject. Although major scandals have received cursory coverage in the media, the subject has been allowed to immediately disappear without discussion or investigation. Therefore the appearance this year of two major studies of this subject is a welcome breakthrough, and provides essential reading for anyone struggling to understand the events of September 11, 2001 and the post September 11 world.


http://www.bushstole04.com/911/911_coincidences.htm9-11 Coincidences-Series of 19 Videos
This is a very well done video broken into 19 short videos about 9-11 being an inside job or a false flag attack.


http://www.bushstole04.com/fakewar/mega_lie.htmThe Mega-Lie Called the "War on Terror": A Masterpiece of Propaganda
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie ... The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state." --Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945


http://www.bushstole04.com/bushfascism/selection_videos.htmSelection of Videos Showing Fascist Take-over of U.S. by Military/Industrial/Oil/Central Banking Complex
The following selection of videos speak volumes
about:
1. 9-11 being an inside job;
2. the secret, insidious power of private central
banks, like the Federal Reserve Bank and the
Bank of England;
3. how the military/industrial/oil/international
banking complex with the support of the Bush
Family and the CIA has planned and orchestrated
a silent fascist takeover of this country by gaining
control of the courts, media, electronic voting
machines and the Executive Branch and by selling
a fake war on terror by the perpetration of 9-11.


I'm shocked that the guys in the article below were able to even get their case in court. Of course they didn't get no where near what they deserved.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091103/ts_nm/us_usa_rights_muslims_1U.S. settles suit with Muslims in post-9/11 abuse
The U.S. government will pay $1.26 million to five Muslim men detained for months without charges after the September 11 attacks who sued for unlawful imprisonment and abuse, their lawyers said on Tuesday.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
After they pay their lawyers, the actual settlement will just about cover minimum wage for their term of imprisonment.
This settlement is an insult. It does not even come close to punishing the government for their illegal actions. At best it is "shut up and go away" money.






http://www.bushstole04.com/911/9-11_videos_embedded.htmVideos on 9-11 Being an Inside Job
I find it so unbelievable that even well-informed journalists still think that Bush is just incompetent and that 9/11 was coincidental to allow Bush to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and establish a strong base for fascism in this country.
If you look at the people that Bush hired you will see that they have been waiting for the right moment to implement their plans which have been in place for at least 30 years. Bush appointed 32 Israeli dual citizens to his administration, mostly in foreign affairs and Middle Eastern affairs posts.
There has been a plan in place to militarily take over the oil in the Middle East for over 30 years.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/21750Re-investigate 9/11: 2nd meeting in the House of Commons, London
A few weeks ago I posted an entry about a meeting in the House of Commons in London. The second meeting will be monday 2nd November.
With great support from a fairtrade coffee business, a full page advert was placed in one of our national newspapers, the Independent, on Saturday 31st October


So you see deniers ... you can laugh call us names, post stupid pictures, tell us we got nothing ... but guess what? People ... all over the world ... are still going to want and demand a real investigation ... that must be terribly frustrating for you.


http://www.bushstole04.com/911/sheen_blasts.htmSheen Blasts Cowardly Media Response To 20 Minutes Letter
Actor labels corporate media shills cockroaches for completely failing to address 20 bullet points on 9/11
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Charlie Sheen has blasted the cowardly corporate media response to his 20 Minutes With The President letter, slamming the press as hopeless lap-dogs for failing to address a single one of his 20 bullet points on 9/11 while ignoring completely his challenge to publicly debate 9/11 truth debunkers.


http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8157Did Nano thermite take down the WTC ?
Part 2 less than 3 min
Russia Today does an interview with Danish scientist Niels Harrit

... and the big question no denier can answer ... why didn't the NIST look for explosives? What does the NIST refuse to test for explosives?


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks? Where is the Evidence?
The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an article of faith points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea. 
On the other hand, as I pointed out at length in two of my books  9/11 Contradictions1 and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,2 no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it.


... and that's the 911 News for today ... good night and good news


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 5, 2009)

Big P said:


> d
> 
> and if you linked the zogby poll then i will go back and check it out and declare myself the true assclown



Start declaring!!


If you actually tried to read what was linked and didn't just skim over it and try to nitpick something out that more or less helps you cause you probably wouldn't have missed this. i will highlight some parts for you.



"
*United States*

*[edit] Zogby polls*

The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organisations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.
The first one was conducted in August 2004, on the eve of a Republican National Convention, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that *49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.*
The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:
_"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"_ 

Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure
 _"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"_ 

Responses: 43% Not Aware / *38% Aware - should have investigated it */ *14% Aware - right not to investigate it */ 5% Not Sure
 _"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"_ 

Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
 The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.[6]
The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.
In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds *(67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated* the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."


Start the Declarations any time now.


----------



## Big P (Nov 5, 2009)

how aout this ill declare im and ass clown now but i still see from your info that a large majority of americans do not believ our own government perpetrated the attacks



I am an assclown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




you guys been watching the news, you might wanna turn it on

seems 12 of our fellow soldiers have been murdered in texas 31 wounded by fellow soldiers


if you dont think the current admin had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks 

then its time to stop this and hold solidarity to kill our enemy 


dont do this while we are at war

god bless the police officer who died doing his duty to kill the traitor the other 2 suspects are in custody alive

i cant wait to metaforically spit in thier faces once i see them on tv


where im from they would behead these pigs and crucify them for the public to watch them rott


----------



## Big P (Nov 5, 2009)

update seems the other 2 soilders were not involved they have been released there is still at least 1 suspect on the loose


guard your grills bitches!


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 5, 2009)

The "enemy" are the people behind the false flag attacks.
Who of which don't give a damn about those soldiers fighting and dying for corporate interests.


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 5, 2009)

P didnt u say you "didnt have time for this" and then went on to change the subject AGAIN , and of course the name calling.....

quit trollin threads we are trying to discuss important news whether u think so or not.


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 5, 2009)

I don't think there are too many people saying that our government attacked us, i think most of us are just saying " Hey all this info that you didn't look into and something isn't right here, we want a unbiased investigation". I myself think our government officials had something to do with it, too many things that happened to remotely be a coincidence. Its not easy to attack the USA, we do have the highest tech defense network in the whole world. We got shit that can find a mouse in the middle of the desert and nuke it with pinpoint precision, but somehow 4 planes got away from us. The owner of the buildings made something in the neighborhood of 4.6 BILLION dollars off of the insurance that was specifically given terrorist attack coverage. Mr Silverstein paid 14 million to own the lease on the buildings. He bought the rights to the buildings on July 24, 2001. He made 4 billion 586 million dollars of profit in 90 days making him probably one of the luckiest people to ever walk the face of the earth. The only actual building he owned was......WTC #7. OMG NO FUCKING WAY! ARE U SERIOUS!!

just all coincidence im sure. A full 1/4 of the terrorists who attacked us survived the crashes and are living in America right now eating hamburgers and watching TV in a neighborhood near you. Funny how some of the terrorists lived and none of the passengers did. Funny how the plane that hit the pentagon seemingly did not have the 2 ton titanium engines on it when it hit, because they could not be found, they say it was because they disintegrated into dust on impact. BUT they did find DNA evidence of every single person aboard. AMAZING!!! You have seen the OFFICIAL list of terrorists, yet some of those people are still alive and NOT in jail. How is it possible? Its not because it was mostly made up.

Thats just a tip of the iceberg of all the holes and screwed upness that is 911, there are so many "Coincidences" that it makes winning the New York state lottery 365 days in a row look easy to do.

Hey we aren't saying that our own government people went in there and made that shit happen, were saying the gov't had something to do with the orchestration of it all.


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 5, 2009)

How Ironic that a Major in the army who went to medical school and was a specialist in stress related to being in war attempted to take the life of 50 people due to stress related to going to war. War sucks.


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 5, 2009)

Keenly said:


> oklahoma city bombing? another inside job
> 
> for several reasons.... 1 truck blows a building in half, with the explosion going in a 50 ish degree angle in ONE direction.....


Absolutely. The building right across the street only had some broken glass.

The rescue was stopped to allow feds to remove boxes of documents, probably related to the class action lawsuit from the families of the bar-b-qued branch dividians. I watched this live. Security cameras a few blocks away clearly recorded 2 distinct explosions.

Then 2 American heroes take the fall...I wonder where Timmy is really at?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 5, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Absolutely. The building right across the street only had some broken glass.
> 
> The rescue was stopped to allow feds to remove boxes of documents, probably related to the class action lawsuit from the families of the bar-b-qued branch dividians. I watched this live. Security cameras a few blocks away clearly recorded 2 distinct explosions.
> 
> Then 2 American heroes take the fall...I wonder where Timmy is really at?


I probably shouldn't be saying this, but he was executed 5 miles from me 

... if he was at all. I haven't done much research about the "bombing"


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 5, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> I probably shouldn't be saying this, but he was executed 5 miles from me
> 
> ... if he was at all. I haven't done much research about the "bombing"


That is what I heard also....


----------



## Keenly (Nov 6, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> The owner of the buildings made something in the neighborhood of 4.6 BILLION dollars off of the insurance that was specifically given terrorist attack coverage. Mr Silverstein paid 14 million to own the lease on the buildings. He bought the rights to the buildings on July 24, 2001. He made 4 billion 586 million dollars of profit in 90 days making him probably one of the luckiest people to ever walk the face of the earth. The only actual building he owned was......WTC #7. OMG NO FUCKING WAY! ARE U SERIOUS!!
> 
> just all coincidence im sure. A full 1/4 of the terrorists who attacked us survived the crashes and are living in America right now eating hamburgers and watching TV in a neighborhood near you. Funny how some of the terrorists lived and none of the passengers did. Funny how the plane that hit the pentagon seemingly did not have the 2 ton titanium engines on it when it hit, because they could not be found, they say it was because they disintegrated into dust on impact. BUT they did find DNA evidence of every single person aboard. AMAZING!!! You have seen the OFFICIAL list of terrorists, yet some of those people are still alive and NOT in jail. How is it possible? Its not because it was mostly made up.


 
just to add a little something to this bit of information no drama has posted


the greedy fucking bastard known as silverstein tried to qualify each plane as a seperate act of terrorism, and building 7 as its own seperate terrorism act




which is ironic becuase HE was the one who ordered the demolition of building 7




its like killing your wife in front of a cop and your insurance agent then turning around and saying "a check will do just fine"


and BIG P

this message is just for you



you may think we are at war, but constitutionally (if you believe in that sort of thing) only congress may declare war



so far the only ones who have declared war are the executive branch, as well as the media


so... no we are not at war....


also... your saying we need to unite against our "enemy"


US casualities ~6,000

"enemy" casualities ~1.3 million


so, now that i have established that its not a war, and is in fact, a slaughter

lets think about something here


you want us to come together and stop fighting to help slaughter our "enemies"


What if you were to find out that our "enemies" are innocent people going about their daily lives? and that this has all been one huge mistake?


what the fuck do we do as a country?


"hey muslims, sorry will totally massacred your people, have a good day!"


think about what your saying man.....





and also, a little edit to add this little peice of informatio


marvin Bush, Head of security for both American Airlines, AND the WTC complex



coincidence? one in 10,000 co incidences


*jedi mind trick hand wave* move along, no dots to connect here


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 6, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> How Ironic that a Major in the army who went to medical school and was a specialist in stress related to being in war attempted to take the life of 50 people due to stress related to going to war. War sucks.


I'm telling ya ... obviously the major knew he would be doing nothing more than fighting, killing, and dying for corporate interests. The truth of the matter caused him to snap ... especially having first hand knowledge of what being in an illegal war can do to a person's mind. It may have been too much to bare. My heart goes out to him and all the military families caught up in this bullshit.

Now on to the 911 news ... 
Cynthia McKinney was interviewed in France ... they seem to have taking a keen interest ... well not the corporate media in France of course, but some of the French media does seem to have an interest in what really happen on 911 ...

Interview: Cynthia McKinney and Niels Harrit
Some of it is in French, but when they start talking to McKinney and Harrit, it's in English. It looks like the video will only load half way so half of the interview is gone ... if and when they correct the video I will repost if necessary, if not I will let you know when it's running fully again.

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091105_chomsky_confronted.htmChomsky Confronted on 9/11 Admits LIHOP is "conceivable"
A 9/11 activist recently confronted Noam Chomsky on his previous, well-publicized disparaging remarks about 9/11 truth. After spending several minutes repeating his tired arguments about the impossibility of 9/11 as an inside job, Chomsky then concedes that the notion that the Bush Administration knew of an impending attack and let it happen on purpose is "conceivable." Watch footage of the confrontation in the video player below:
Mark Abell Grills Noam Chomsky On 911 As An Inside Job
[youtube]K4QCUsRchbc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The video comes from a speaking engagement that venerated linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky was giving at the First Unitarian Church of Portland on October 2, 2009. In his question, 9/11 activist Mark Abell first details the historical precedents of the Reichstag fire and FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor to establish that false flags and LIHOP events have been used in the past to justify warmongering. Then he asks why the notion of 9/11 as an inside job is such an "inconceivable idea" for Chomsky to a round of applause from the audience.

Of course those of you that have been following this thread know I have posted this interview before with Aaron Russo and Alex Jones ... looks like the Dailymotion got a hold of it as well ...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qiv7_aaron-russo-sur-le-11-septembre-le_politicsAaron Russo - Was told 9-11 would happen months in advance!
Like I said ... the some of the French have a keen interested in what really happen that day.

Apparently this writer below has a strong belief in the Israel 911 connection ... 
http://www.bushstole04.com/911/911_israeli_lab.htmIsrael's Super-Thermite Lab
The thesis of my book, Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, is that a small gang of high-level Zionist extremists carried out 9-11. This group centers around the senior Israeli terrorist, Shimon Peres, who is currently president of Israel. This group includes other Israeli leaders, such as the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It also includes the Israeli minister of defense, Ehud Barak, and other less well known members of Israel's military intelligence establishment. Former Mossad officers, especially people like Arnon Milchan, who have been involved in building Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal with Shimon Peres, are also included.

... and that's the 911 news ... Happy Friday everybody!


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 6, 2009)

Okay ... I found a link with the full McKinney, Harrit interview. Very interesting. It's about 26 minutes long.

11-SEPTEMBRE: LE DROIT AU DOUTE


----------



## wyteboi (Nov 6, 2009)

There are 5 or 10 more "Coincidences". 
Shall we keep going? or have you had enough of us "nutts" ?


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 7, 2009)

Keenly said:


> and also, a little edit to add this little peice of informatio
> 
> 
> marvin Bush, Head of security for both American Airlines, AND the WTC complex
> ...


Whoa! if this is true, it sure smells funny...Is the guys name a coincidence also?...time to google!


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 7, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Whoa! if this is true, it sure smells funny...Is the guys name a coincidence also?...time to google!


Wow do I feel stupid...Jorge's freaking little brother! According to Wiki (for what it's worth) Marvin was on the board of directors for Securacom, but it lists his tenure from '93-2000.

Oh and Securacom is owned by a Kuwati company....and has contracts with the defense dept.

So in a little browsing I cam across this (it is short and sweet with lots of stuff for the attention span impaired)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

The Bush stuff and then some of the stuff on the above link (I am sure the OP has posted all of this before, but...) Things like the bomb sniffing dogs being removed a week before and the 36 hour power outage from the 50th floor up (both allowing explosives to be set up).


And then what Keenly has posted in response to BP...It really puts it into perspective; on the one hand, rallying against our _enemies_, while on the other, the huge disproportion of casualties.

I am in now way anti-Semitic, but I can see where a case could be made for an Israeli connection.

I do not know if it is crystal clear yet, but this whole thing sure smells bad.

To think that this has led us into 2 "wars" is very sad. And if ANYONE thinks we actually have a chance of "winning" in Iraq (in the long term) much less any possible hope of accomplishing anything other than strengthening Al-Queda and the towlie-ban and pissing off Iran and Pakistan...they are, well...a little high.

BILLIONS of dollars wasted...but hell no we should not let the poor get healthcare in our own country! That would be an abomination to all things we hold dear as a free and democratic country!

How in the world, otherwise seemingly intelligent people can be fooled into supporting foreign wars while at the same time claiming that spending a fraction over many years for a healthy citizenry will somehow destroy our freedom. Insurance companies are in the business to screw people, not help them!

I find it an utter embarrassment the the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba, Canada, All of the European Union, New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavia, The Czech Republic, South Korea, and many others...Our superior capitalistic system and pious population does not justify such shamefulness....but blowing stuff up and killing brown folks is cool...


----------



## Keenly (Nov 7, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Wow do I feel stupid...Jorge's freaking little brother! According to Wiki (for what it's worth) Marvin was on the board of directors for Securacom, but it lists his tenure from '93-2000.
> 
> Oh and Securacom is owned by a Kuwati company....and has contracts with the defense dept.
> 
> ...


welll.... hayduke its not really like the new healthcare bill is good


healthcare is a good concept, and when your only fed one peice of the pie it sounds amazing


but look at this news today

a new amendmant tha says if you do not buy a 15,000$ policy, you COULD go to jail for up to 5 years



they are SERIOUSLY threatening jail time to anyone who does not buy their shit


that is not freedom, that is not helping the poor....that is the exact opposite of both




here is the article






*Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail *


Text size<LI class=rightmag> 


*House Committee On Ways & Means Republicans*
November 7, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain &#8220;acceptable health insurance coverage&#8221; and who choose not to pay the bill&#8217;s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.





In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: &#8220;This is the ultimate example of the Democrats&#8217; command-and-control style of governing &#8211; buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.&#8221;
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
&#8220;_H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.&#8221;_ [page 1]
&#8211; - &#8211; - &#8211; - &#8211; - &#8211; - 
&#8220;_If the government determines that the taxpayer&#8217;s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply&#8230;&#8221;_ [page 2]
&#8211; - &#8211; - &#8211; - &#8211; - &#8211; - 
&#8220;_Criminal penalties_
_Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:_
_&#8226; Section 7203 &#8211; misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year._
_&#8226; Section 7201 &#8211; felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years_.&#8221; [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
&#8220;The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi&#8217;s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,&#8221; said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker&#8217;s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 7, 2009)

I would have to agree, that as it stands, there is problems with language that could be misconstrued...

But this is no different from claiming that there will be death panels.

With no public option, any bill is just more bs legislation. We will have wasted lots of time and money for nothing. The problem with healthcare IS the insurance companies. If there is no option to the big insurance companies, there is NO reform.

This is just politics. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that it would become law...many Americans earn less than $20,000/year.

But I really believe that the chest pounding republicans will make sure that there is no healthcare for the poor unless they can make it to 65...or happen to live in a (foreign) war zone.


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 8, 2009)

http://www.politicaltheatrics.net/?p=79Confirmed:14 Israeli's Inside WTC
*The 14 Art Students, it has now been confirmed, were in the World Trade Center Towers with Construction Passes, Connection to Mossad Spy Ring*

CoreOfCorruption.com - 4 Suspects in World Trade Center Before 9/11 Doing Construction
[youtube]dA9MvV-SrCo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/112CBC TVs Fifth Estate Program Airs AE911Truth Nov 27 
On September 11 of this year, we were interviewed on September 11 in New York at the We Demand Transparency conference by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's "Fifth Estate" program. This is the equivalent of "60 Minutes" in Canada. It is set to air on November 27.
The producers of the National Geographic Channel assured us that they would air the evidence we highlighted for them on their show 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. They even showed us these segments in their "rough cut," which we were quite satisfied with. However, the final show aired none of our evidence, and they claimed that we had none. We were determined not to let this happen a second time with the CBC.



Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11 
Former Transportation Secretary Disputes 9/11 Commission Report Timetable for Dick Cheney and Reveals Lynn Cheney Was Also in PEOC Bunker Before Attack
911truthseattle.org meets Norm Mineta
[youtube]u-5PKQTUz5o&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.bushstole04.com/911/jennings_jones.htmBarry Jennings, Deputy Director, Emergency Services Dept., New York Housing Authority,on WTC 7
Barry Jennings, Deputy Director, Emergency Services Dept., New York Housing Authority, on the Alex Jones Radio Show.
Barry Jennings, Deputy Director, Emergency Services Dept., New York Housing Authority, on the Alex Jones Radio Show. He was in WTC 7 before it collapsed and heard explosions and saw lobby destroyed with many dead bodies. This is all before WTC 1 & 2 collapsed.
Barry Jennings
[youtube]NttM3oUrNmE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.htmlOH COME ON NOW, THIS IS JUST PLAIN FUCKING SILLY!!!!!!!!:Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists
Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.








Richard Dreyfuss Says No To New 9/11 Investigation
[youtube]g08ogb_8VVw[/youtube]
Richard Dreyfuss was confronted by We Are Change Chicago and
DuPage911Truth.org about supporting Charlie Sheen's call for a new 9/11 Investigation at Naperville, IL on September 19, 2009. Richard insists that a new investigation wait a generation.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
Oh Richard, you are SUCH a hypocrite here!
I have personally heard you rail about how your own ancestor, Captain Alfred Dreyfuss, was screwed over because nobody wanted to challenge the official story of L'Affair Dreyfuss!
And now here you are essentially saying that the official story should be left alone until after the perpetrators have died of old age!
Richard, why don't you stop commenting on things you know nothing about, go golfing, and work on your putz.


9/11 Flight 93 Rare Footage
[youtube]JZekosYOmXc[/youtube]
Here another one of those videos where there is no plane wreckage and people are reporting no evidence of a plane crash.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_charges.htmlShaped Charges and the World Trade Center Collapses
Why were high velocity explosives detonating in the vicinity of the World Trade Center?


World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions
[youtube]_A9X_8flGeM[/youtube]


*9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and
Explosions in the WTC*
... this was the Sunday Evening 911 News Report ... brought to you by


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 9, 2009)

http://www.bushstole04.com/911/patriots_question.htmSenior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements. It is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 11, 2009)

*Swedish Member Of Parliament: Leading Politicians Support 9/11 Truth Movement*
A Swedish Member of Parliament has pledged support for a new investigation into the events of 9/11, adding that prominent political figures support the view that elements of the U.S. government were involved in staging the attacks.

An article headlined The U.S. was part of the attack in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, highlights comments made by MP Egon Frid of the countrys Left Party.

The U.S. administration knew of the terrorist attack before and was a part of it, Frid said in an interview with Swedish TV network TV4 on its Kalla Facts (Hard Facts) programme.


----------



## Katatawnic (Nov 13, 2009)

Just received a "Breaking News" email alert from washingtonpost.com about ten minutes ago... I'm sure this will receive a mixed reaction. 



> An administration official said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court. Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators in the 9/11 plot had been facing capital charges in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay. The closely-held decision has been the subject of intense speculation, and represents a milestone moment in the Obama administration's quest to close the military detention center on the southeastern tip of Cuba.


----------



## TheBlazehero (Nov 13, 2009)

one thing i think we can all agree on is that we as Americans need to be more informed about what the hell is going on in government and how it affects our lives. it seems kind of strange to me that we have such great and abundant resources and can still have all of these problems and crisis.


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 13, 2009)

Katatawnic said:


> Just received a "Breaking News" email alert from washingtonpost.com about ten minutes ago... I'm sure this will receive a mixed reaction.


Well we will have to keep an eye on this one. I highly doubt they will let this go to court. Their lawyers would probably easily prove that they were tortured and the war criminals don't want that to get out. So let see if they do put them on trial where the public can see.


TheBlazehero said:


> one thing i think we can all agree on is that we as Americans need to be more informed about what the hell is going on in government and how it affects our lives. it seems kind of strange to me that we have such great and abundant resources and can still have all of these problems and crisis.


Thank the elite war criminals for that. We need to get rid of them all.


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 14, 2009)

http://obamboozled.blogspot.com/2009/11/boehner-911-show-trial-irresponsible.htmlBoehner: 9/11 Show Trial an Irresponsible Decision
Boehner and the Republicans want to make sure you never know if suspected terrorists are guilty or merely pawns in the neocon GWOT. In May, the U.S. House Republicans introduced H.R. 2294, the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which would block the transfer or release of the Guantanamo Bay terrorists into the United States. Boehner introduced the bill.
Maybe Boehner will introduce a Make Sure Suspected Terrorists Never Get a Fair Trial bill soon.
At any rate, Obamas ploy to bring suspected terrorists to the United States and put them on trial is a parlor trick. If the Democrats manage to pull off their public trial ruse, KSM and crew will certainly not get a fair shake.


They know they can't take the chance of a ... just what boehner said "show trial" ... it could get out of hand and some of the truth could come out and they simply can't have that. The actions of congress alone gives clear indication they what to hide what really happen that day. Folk that can't see that need a cane ... Now watch this story carefully, because my guess is ... there will be no "show trial".


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 14, 2009)

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/11/14/faa-and-norad-changed-records-to-accord-with-cheney-lies/FAA and NORAD Changed Records to Accord with Cheney Lies
A senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, has written a book exposing the degree to which our response to 9/11 was disorganized and and outdatedgeared to respond to an attack from Russia rather than from terrorists. Most significantly, Farmer reveals that FAA and NORAD altered their chronologies of the day only after a briefing at the White House.
 Perhaps nothing perturbs Farmer more than the contention that high-ranking officials responded quickly and effectively to the revelation that Qaeda attacks were taking place. Nothing, Farmer indicates, could be further from the truth: President George W. Bush and other officials were mostly irrelevant during the hijackings; instead, it was the ground-level commanders who made operational decisions in an ad hoc fashion.
Nuff said ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 18, 2009)

Richard Gage AIA and Jan Utzon of Sydney Opera House discuss 9/11 truth
[youtube]txUaDtIbLow&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Richard Gage, AIA of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, talks to architect Jan Utzon, son of Joern Utzon, the architect of the Sydney Opera House.


----------



## Stephen420 (Nov 18, 2009)

This guy is a pathetic socialist. Trying to convince America to get rid of freedom and give themselves to the government to take care of them. Funny isn't it that everything the government has ever brought us has been over priced and inefficient. we now want them to dictate our health? Hmm sounds like a disaster looking for a place to happen.
But after all we did let them steal our kids future by letting our government bailout their financiers at Goldman sach's and Chase.


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 19, 2009)

Stephen420 said:


> This guy is a pathetic socialist.


Um ... I think you got the wrong thread ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 22, 2009)

More on 911 ...
http://www.bushstole04.com/911/pentagon_c_ring_exit_hole.htmPentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery
A great deal has been written about the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11. The focus of this discussion is on the mysterious, and officially unexplained, C-Ring Exit Hole. The C-ring exit hole is significant because it is not consistent with building damage from a Boeing 757 impact. The C-Ring exit hole carries a unique signature, which can only be explained by something other than a 757 impact. No explanation is offered for this hole in the Pentagon Building Performance Report http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf or the official 9-11 Commission Report.

http://dprogram.net/2009/11/16/cia-paid-millions-of-dollars-to-isi-since-911-report/CIA paid millions of dollars to ISI since 9/11: Report
The CIA has paid millions of dollars to Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) since9/11, accounting for as much as one-third of the foreign spy agencys annual budget, says a media report.
The ISI also collected tens of millions of dollars through a classified CIA programme, which pays for the capture or killing of wanted militants, the Los Angeles Times reported on Monday citing current and former US officials.
An intense debate has been triggered within the US government due to long-standing suspicions that the ISI continues to help Taliban extremists who undermine US efforts in Afghanistan and provide sanctuary to al-Qaida members in Pakistan.
*Webmaster's Commentary*: 
In other words, the CIA contracted with ISI to provide the enemies the US Government needs to justify their wars of conquest.


http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a100701stolen#a100701stolenOctober 7, 2001: Stolen 9/11 Documents Appear in Mysterious Circumstances

On this day, Zeljko E., a Kosovar Serb, enters a Hamburg, Germany, police station and says he wants to turn himself in. He tells the police that he has robbed a business and stolen piles of paper written in Arabic, with the hopes of selling them. A friend of his told him that they relate to the 9/11 attacks. The 44 pounds of papers are translated and they prove to be a treasure trove. The documents come from Mamoun Darkazanlis files, which were not in Darkazanlis apartment when police raided it two days after 9/11. It makes for a great story. A petty thief pilfers files containing critical information about the largest terrorist attack in history and dutifully turns them over to the police.


http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/11/15/the-trial-of-the-century/Justin Raimondo gets an ass kicking from readers for tap dancing around 9/11 Truth.

I am referring to the readers' comments to a recent Raimondo column at antiwar.com, The Trial of the Century and the Long Shadow of 9/11
To view the comments, click on link above and go to the Raimondo article and then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on where it says, "CLICK to DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE" in large text to see viewers comments or to leave comments of your own

http://www.viewzone.com/whitevan.htmlIsraeli Owned Moving Van Photographed on 9/11/2001
[Edited]
officer: with a mural painted uh airplane diving into New York blowing up. Two men got outta the truck ran away from it, we got those two [inaudible] under.
officer: kay great.
officer: [inaudible] are you holding those to guys [inaudible] (kay?)
multiple voices/commotion: [inaudible] f**king beat the shit out of him.
officer: all right listen you need any [inaudible] on those two guys over there? you all right over there kay?
officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drive?drove in the van and that exploded we have both of them under kay let's get some help over here
Mossad Truck Bombs on Sept 11

[youtube]3aKj6uJ5Mt4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]




http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/card_bush.htmlWhat Did Card Really Whisper to Bush on 9/11?

Chief of Staff Andrew Card states in this recollection of 9/11 that he whispered to President Bush "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack".
 This wmv video shows Card delivering his message to Bush, and it demonstrates the speed at which he would have had to have to spoken the above words.
It is _impossible_ to whisper at this speed, so why have both he and Bush lied about the content of the message?
Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore this lie?
... and that's the 911 News ... good day and good news


----------



## Keenly (Nov 22, 2009)

Marry me GR lol


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 23, 2009)

Keenly said:


> Marry me GR lol


You don't want an old woman ...hell I'm saving up for a walker! 

Thirty Reasons to Doubt the Official Account of 9/11 
2) There are scores of accounts of people hearing and/or seeing explosions before and as the towers fell - including explosions in the lobby or basement of both towers. 
 Mayor Giuliani has stated publicly that he was told the first tower was about to collapse. This is extraordinary considering that in the history of high-rise fires there has never been such a collapse. 
11) The collapse of WTC 7 was reported by the BBC a half hour before it happened, suggesting that the building's destruction was planned and the news scripted. 
1 The FBI's most-wanted list does not mention 9/11 as a crime that Osama bin Laden is sought for. An FBI spokesperson has stated that this is because of no hard evidence. 

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]*Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views*[/FONT]
The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
Tortured Confessions?
Well this is going to blow the government's game ... according to the CorbettReport the only reason these guys are being trial in the states is because they agreed to enter a guilty plea ... if they are not going to do that watch an see that this trial doesn't happen. The elite are not going to take the risk of being exposed. You heard it here first.


Richard Gages Wellington Presentation Draws Biggest Blueprint For Truth Audience Ever

The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under hit a high note on Saturday afternoon at the Te Papa Museum in Wellington, when over 650 turned up to hear Richard Gage, the spokesperson for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, (AE911Truth), talk about what really happened to World Trade Centre (WTC) 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. It was the largest crowd the architect and founder of AE911Truth has ever spoken to since he began spreading the truth  what he calls the Blueprint For Truth, about the evidence of 9/11, and revealing the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, not by jet fuel and fires.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/22/lotfi-raissi-secret-files-evidenceSecret files show UK courts were misled over 9/11 suspect Lotfi Raissi

British prosecutors failed to disclose crucial evidence to the courts in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks in a case that resulted in an innocent pilot being jailed for five months, previously unseen documents reveal.
Anyone that what's to see the truth will see the truth. No justice ... no peace ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 24, 2009)

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20091124044913656AE911Truth's Hard Evidence Down Under Tour 2009 - An Amazing Success!! 
The tour kicked off on Wednesday, the Eleventh of November, with a rousing street action in front of the corporate offices of ABC, Australia's national television conglomerate, which happens to be across the street from University of Technology, Sydney. We were able to disseminate information to a significant number of ABC employees, some of whom rather clandestinely asked for our information (although they'd apparently been told to not take our materials, according to one such employee), a few intrepid journalists who showed the courage to stop and talk, and hundreds of passersby. Sydney is a very 'international' city, especially there near the university, and we had very engaging conversations with people from around the world, most of whom were well aware of and distressed by the continuing questions surrounding 9/11. In addition, a substantial conversation was held with a very pleasant, intelligent and supportive engineering professor, which we hope will lead to inroads into the faculty and administration there.

Paid Lying: What Passes for Major Media Journalism  
The Paper of Record has a long history of:

-- supporting the powerful; 

-- backing corporate interests; 

-- endorsing imperial wars; 

-- supporting CIA efforts to topple elected governments, assassinate independent leaders, prop up friendly dictators, secretly fund and train paramilitary death squads, practice sophisticated forms of torture, and menace democratic freedoms at home and abroad. For decades, in fact, some Times' foreign correspondents were covert Agency assets. Others today likely are as well as other prominent fourth estate members.

The Times management is also comfortable with:

-- Washington and corporate lawlessness; 

-- an unprecedented and growing wealth gap; 

-- Wall Street banksters looting the federal treasury;

-- a private banking cartel controlling the nation's money;


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 25, 2009)

9/11 tragedy pager intercepts
Text pagers are usualy carried by persons operating in an official capacity. Messages in the archive range from Pentagon, FBI, FEMA and New York Police Department exchanges, to computers reporting faults at investment banks inside the World Trade Center

 The archive is a completely objective record of the defining moment of our time. We hope that its entrance into the historical record will lead to a nuanced understanding of how this event led to death, opportunism and war.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html[URL="http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html"]Utzon's son signs up for September 11 conspiracy theory
[/url]

AS CONSPIRACY theories go, it is up there with the CIA assassination of president John Kennedy and the faked moon landings. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, have spawned a cottage industry devoted to questioning whether they were the work of al-Qaeda and hinting that it was ''an inside job''. Now a lead figure in the self-described ''9/11 truth movement'', an American architect, Richard Gage, has revealed one of its most high-profile adherents to date: Jan Utzon, son of the world-famous designer of the Sydney Opera House, Joern Utzon.
*Webmaster's Commentary*: 
As you can tell from the condescending tone and the inevitable reference to the claim that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, the Australian media treats 9-11 pretty much the way the American media does; the government's feces are not odoriferous and the doubters and just kooks. 
However, the significance of this story is that the Australian media, which for 8 years has not even mentioned that there is another opinion about 9-11, is finally having to acknowledge (and attempt to refute) that there is another point of view about all this.
The so called fake moon landing is no where near the Kennedy assassination or the false flag 911 attack ... 



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16269http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16269[URL="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16269"]Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds trial will convict us all
[/url]
It took Hitler a while to corrupt the German courts. Hitler first had to create new courts, like President George W. Bushs military tribunals, that did not require evidence, using in place of evidence hearsay, secret charges, and self-incrimination obtained by torture.
Every American should be concerned that the Obama administration has decided to use Mohammeds trial to complete the corruption of the American court system. When Mohammeds trial is over, an American Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler will be able to convict Americas Founding Fathers on charges of treason and terrorism. No one will be safe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Wt-ZqNLr0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Wt-ZqNLr0&feature=player_embeddedThe Questions - Charlie Sheen's 20 minutes with the President (9/11 Questions for Obama)

[youtube]V4Wt-ZqNLr0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


The Questions ...
*Why has the US department of justice not charged Osama Bin Laden for 911?
FBI response ... "We don't have enough evidence."


*When did Osama Bin Laden stop working for the CIA?


*How did WTC 7 fall at freefall speed?


*How did the BBC obtain advanced knowledge of the WTC 7 collapse? 



*How does a hijacker's passport survived unscathed?


*What unidentified planes where flying on 911?


*Why didn't bush and cheney testify separately in public or under oath?
Anyone with eyes, a brain who are not afraid to use them will see something is rotten in Washington. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.


I hope all of you have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving ... smoke em if you got em ...


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 25, 2009)

The Charlie Sheen video is excellent...though a little scary if you are not 100% convinced of the false flag...

At least the skies have been clear for a week or two...


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 25, 2009)

The mind is repulsed by the fact that such an Evil atrocity was committed and the truth hidden from us all.

Your government did this to you. Are you just going to take it laying down?


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 25, 2009)

NoDrama said:


> The mind is repulsed by the fact that such an Evil atrocity was committed and the truth hidden from us all.
> 
> Your government did this to you. Are you just going to take it laying down?


My plan all along has been to hide in the woods....not sure how that's gonna work since there is supposedly a FEMA camp 20 miles away


----------



## NoDrama (Nov 25, 2009)

I wonder what percent of the population is under the assumption that government lies to us all the time. Its like watching Mad Money with Jim Cramer. If in the last 2 years you did the exact opposite of what he suggested doing you would have made 180% profit. By following his advice you would have lost 95% of everything. When the Gubbermint tells you that the economy is on the mend, lies. When they say that the recession will be over by the first quarter 2010, lies. When they say unemployment is at 10.25%, lies, more like 18-20%. Only the midwest has any employment numbers that aren't in the shitter.


----------



## Hayduke (Nov 25, 2009)

Unemployment is down = More people have exhausted their benefits than new filers...

Fewer Job layoffs = running out of people to lay off

No need for mammogram until 50 = get one when your 30


----------



## jfgordon1 (Nov 27, 2009)

A great read ! It's a little long, so i didn't quote it. 


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/DCTPFA911.html


----------



## GrowRebel (Nov 29, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> A great read ! It's a little long, so i didn't quote it.
> 
> 
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/DCTPFA911.html


Thanks for posting that ... certainly a different approach ... but I'm sure it will go way over the deniers heads ... 

And now for the 911 News ...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=184059/11: Pentagon Aircraft Hijack Impossible, Flight Deck Door Closed for Entire Flight
Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television
[youtube]B2INIOXe_WI[/youtube]
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/terrorist-...
Richard Gage AIA appeared on New Zealand's government owned television station, TVNZ, on 27 November 2009.
In this interview on the "Close Up" program, Gage lays out the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition of 3 WTC office towers on 11 September 2009.
This may be the first time the evidence assembled by Gage and others in the 9/11 truth movement has been presented with the gravity and respect it deserves by any mainstream news broadcaster.
I would like to commend TVNZ's board for having the courage to air this piece.
Here .... here .... 


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/frameup.htmlTHE 9/11 ANTHRAX FRAME-UP
The Anthrax didn't come from the Middle East. It isn't Saddam's or Osama's, it's the very best high quality mil-spec Anthrax home grown at Fort Detrick, Dugway, and USAMRIID. It's our Anthrax.
And that means that all the slanted writing, the extra crossings on the "T"s, the references to Allah and Israel are a carefully crafted hoax, designed to trick Americans into thinking that Arab Muslims from the middle east were to blame for the Anthrax letters.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/nov/25/september-11-wikileaks-pager-messages9/11 re-enacted: Wikileaks publishes September 11 pager messages

Wikileaks would not reveal the source for the leak, but hinted: "It is clear that the information comes from an organisation which has been intercepting and archiving US national telecommunciations since prior to 9/11.


http://www.bushstole04.com/fakewar/international_terrorism.htmInternational Terrorism Does Not Exist

International Terrorism Does Not Exist
by General Leonid Ivashov *


http://www.bushstole04.com/fakewar/brzezinski.htmTop globalist warns Congress of provocation or terrorist attack inside U.S.

Brzezinski Suggests *False Flag Event Could Kick-Start Iran War*
Top globalist warns Congress of provocation or terrorist attack inside U.S.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski tacitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that an attack on Iran could be launched following a *staged provocation* in Iraq or a *false flag terror attack *within the U.S.


They are just itching for another false flag attack.

http://refreshingnews9.blogspot.com/2009/11/911-pager-messages-revealed.html9/11 pager messages revealed
Wikileaks said some of the messages were sent by federal and local officials, but most appear to be from ordinary people, including frantic New Yorkers trying to reach loved ones in and around the World Trade Center.
From "Second World Trade Center tower collapses" to "I'm ok & love you..xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox" they relive the anguish and emotion of the day.


----------



## Keenly (Nov 29, 2009)

damnit GR you beat me to it



thats right, your first article in your last post, the hijacking was physically impossible to take place



they said that the armed hijackers moved everyone, including the pilot, to the back of the plane



however, according to the flight recorder evidence, the cockpit door was *never opened during the entire flight

*so, how did the hijackers get into the cockpit if the door never opened?


how did they move the pilots out?

they didnt, because it was impossible


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 2, 2009)

Keenly said:


> damnit GR you beat me to it
> 
> however, according to the flight recorder evidence, the cockpit door was *never opened during the entire flight
> 
> ...


Just more fuel for the fire keenly ... and more evidence for the deniers to disregard ... 

Here's is something interesting from our friends of WACLA ... they cornered bob kerrey ... now some folks in the audience gave some negative grumbles, but they ask him some very touch questions. 

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses Part 1 of 3 
[youtube]Qrqq2KxyWAs&feature=related[/youtube]
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey Part 2 of 3

[youtube]fczMuxtOEU8&feature=related[/youtube]

Commission could not do it's job - Part 3 of 3
[youtube]gtJWBcWAeAw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Towards the end of the clip WeAreChangeLA's Jeremy Rothe-Kushel confronts Kerrey about the aspects of treason involved with covering up the truth about 9-11, and Kerrey responds "It's a 30 year conspiracy".


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 3, 2009)

I have to hand it to CBC for presenting this material. I know they are corporate controlled so this is a big deal. Folks this is the 60 minutes of Canada ... can you imagine the impact if 60 minutes here spent the entire program on the unofficial story? Anyway this is presented in the same format 60 minutes airs their stories ... it's the same length as the show ... I hope you will be able to watch it and comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkYlbpS-vVI&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkYlbpS-vVI&feature=player_embeddedCBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 1-5
[youtube]TkYlbpS-vVI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4xhrJyKGQ8&feature=video_responsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4xhrJyKGQ8&feature=video_responseCBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 2-5
[youtube]V4xhrJyKGQ8&feature=video_response[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=femgO-ZYDm0&feature=video_responsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=femgO-ZYDm0&feature=video_responseCBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 3-5 


[youtube]femgO-ZYDm0&feature=video_response[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjxrGUujXVc&feature=video_responsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjxrGUujXVc&feature=video_responseCBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 4-5
[youtube]qjxrGUujXVc&feature=video_response[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcaORNbh4A&feature=video_responsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XcaORNbh4A&feature=video_responseCBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 5-5
[youtube]3XcaORNbh4A&feature=video_response[/youtube]

Kudos to CBC for airing this ... the French backed down, but CBC has balls ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 3, 2009)

Here's the comment section from CBC's program site. Very interesting... and of course the majority of the posters don't buy the government's bullshit story ...


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 3, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Kerrey responds "It's a 30 year conspiracy".


Wow!

What does this mean? Bush Sr was head of CIA in '71...?

And he never really answers why he left the senate...probably because he knows


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 4, 2009)

wow i have missed alot. 
Thank you guys very much for staying so involved. 
I been workin hard lately, so not much time to read but i will not miss anything in the long run.
Virus's are hitting hard right now, so be very careful with downloading! .......hmmm... christmas is close , maybe thats why ?

all im sayin is if money is your #1 priority then you might wanna re-evaluate your WHOLE life. these folks make me  sorry for the rantin....


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 4, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Wow!
> 
> What does this mean? Bush Sr was head of CIA in '71...?
> 
> And he never really answers why he left the senate...probably because he knows


I believe all the high level government official have an idea what happen ... that's why they don't want a real investigation.

So it's up to we the people to make this false flag operation generally known so they can't do it again ... and they want to really ... really .... bad.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 5, 2009)

I tried to get on RIU last night to see the fifth estate with no luck, but I found it on youtube.

Did you see Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" on TruTV? The first episode was on HAARP (on youtube) and Wed at 10pm he is doing the second episode on 911.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 6, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> I tried to get on RIU last night to see the fifth estate with no luck, but I found it on youtube.
> 
> Did you see Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" on TruTV? The first episode was on HAARP (on youtube) and Wed at 10pm he is doing the second episode on 911.


Can you get a link to that by any chance?


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 6, 2009)

I found Ventura's show via the bit torrent and was able to download it. They talked about HAARP which is a secret government project that is using mind control and controlling the weather. Check it out if you can.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 6, 2009)

Here is the 1st episode of Conspiracy Theory with Former Navy seal and Minnesota Governor Jesse "the Body" Ventura...(also former pro wrestler)

[youtube]y1tD12Byuls[/youtube]

[youtube]LKOc32PEIc4&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]2eoUQ3ylLsk&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]hXSFbVRuIk4&feature=related[/youtube]


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 6, 2009)

just finished the CBC special and the WACLA questions to Bob Kerrey, Very nice finds ! very , very glad to see canada is so interested! 
bout to check out jesse the body and see what he thinks......thanks Keen!


----------



## Keenly (Dec 6, 2009)

jesus thank you hayduke i have been looking for that


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 7, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Here is the 1st episode of Conspiracy Theory with Former Navy seal and Minnesota Governor Jesse "the Body" Ventura...(also former pro wrestler)


Thanks much for posting this ...


----------



## maxamus1 (Dec 7, 2009)

good show cant wait for this weeks episode it's on 9-11 so it should be a good one.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 7, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> good show cant wait for this weeks episode it's on 9-11 so it should be a good one.


Hopefully that will be put on youtube as well so we can post it here. I'm looking forward to it as well ... I image it will be like CBC presentation.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 7, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Hopefully that will be put on youtube as well so we can post it here. I'm looking forward to it as well ... I image it will be like CBC presentation.


It will be posted for sure...Some of the posters already have "subscriptions" for Wed nights 911 episode.

I traded watching some Sunday night cartoons with my daughter if she would watch the HAARP episode with me...she did not even fall asleep! We have the same deal for Wed, as she has been wanting me to watch "Glee" with her...seems like a good compromise....She knows I am a little nuts, so when I point out chem trails, she is like yea, yea, whatever...unfortunately, if it is on TV, it is more believable.


----------



## potka (Dec 7, 2009)

you are all retarded


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 7, 2009)

potka said:


> you are all retarded


Glad we could make you feel so welcome


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 7, 2009)

potka said:


> you are all retarded


Ignorance is indeed..... bliss


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 8, 2009)

potka said:


> you are all retarded


Is that the best you can do? Obviously you don't have a clue.


----------



## maxamus1 (Dec 8, 2009)

just wish their were more ppl like jesse to call these ppl out on shit ya know.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 8, 2009)

maxamus1 said:


> just wish their were more ppl like jesse to call these ppl out on shit ya know.


I hear ya ... hopefully more and more people come out in favor of a real investigation.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.htmlhttp://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.html[URL="http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.html"]PEARL HARBOR - MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES[/url]
 "...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
You think huge lies to the public started with Al Gore????????


----------



## TheBlazehero (Dec 8, 2009)

The story we were fed about 9/11 is obviously a lie. Bush either knew what was going to go down and allowed it to happen on purpose or he was part of the conspiracy to set the whole thing up. Otherwise, why lie? This is like JFK all over again. Now we have two wars and an economy in the tank. Idiot Americans don't care to do their own research, would rather listen to what Big Brother tells them.

There should be an arrest of Bush & Cheney and an independent 9/11 Commission with 100% transparency, all findings posted on a website followed by more arrests. This is a conspired event that changed the world for the worse and not many people really care. Et tu, George Bush?

Twin Towers (soon after our liberty, privacy, freedom from propaganda) = Julius Caesar
George Bush = Brutus
Other Conspirators = Roman Senators
People who buy the 'official story' = crowd of Plebians
9/11 'Truthers' = Marc Antony


----------



## maxamus1 (Dec 8, 2009)

we have always been lied to, ever sense we come over here. we have never severed our ties with europe. columbus was not the first to find america but that is what we are taught. who funded his trip? the queen, so how have we ever severed our ties with england? the power that be have always been and will always be, until we the ppl take it from them.


----------



## potka (Dec 8, 2009)

You all now that this happened eight years ago right?


----------



## Katatawnic (Dec 8, 2009)

Potka, I'm not a "truther" but this doesn't change the fact that eight years is not a long time at all, and 9/11 is something we should *never* forget.


----------



## potka (Dec 8, 2009)

...this thread is about conspiracy theroies....


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 8, 2009)

TheBlazehero said:


> Twin Towers (soon after our liberty, privacy, freedom from propaganda) = Julius Caesar
> George Bush = Brutus
> Other Conspirators = Roman Senators
> People who buy the 'official story' = crowd of Plebians
> 9/11 'Truthers' = Marc Antony


Nice analogy.



potka said:


> You all now that this happened eight years ago right?


Yeah...lets just forget about it...get on with life...no need to focus on the negative, right?

We are still at war(s)....Our Navy's motto is now "A Global Force [...]" Our entire way of life has been altered, with what appears to be a false flag attack...at least, we are being lied to.

When a Senator, who was on the 911 Commission says that they were not allowed to finish their investigation when the republican congress would not fund it...quits the senate...then when asked why...makes a joke to avoid answering...wants a permanent Commission to investigate "matters like 911"...and then says "it's a 30 year conspiracy"....At the very least, something is very wrong with what we have been spoon fed...delirious with National pride.

I have been very slow to believe anything is wrong with what we have been told...even though I know that the OK city bombing was an inside job...I still did not believe that my country could be anything but Baseball, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet...Now I am watching planes clearly spraying some unknown something in the sky...not only all over this country, but people are seeing the same in Europe...Nothing is being said...Why? The spray patterns change as the public notices and reports on the internet.
Main stream news magazines casually release matter-of-fact reports about China and Russia routinely seeding clouds to modify weather...Russia/USSR admit to doing this for ~30 years....This, I fear, is merely a smokescreen covering the real reason for the aerial sprays. Liars lie.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 8, 2009)

this thread is about the lies we have been fed


this thread is about physics


above all, common sense, which you dont seem to have since you have come forth with 0 evidence to support your claims


if you dont agree, post something that contradicts the fact that it was an inside job


dont fucking come in here and call us retards because we look at evidence, we can tell the difference between a falling building, and a *free*-falling building


tell you what... tell me exactly, logically, and realistically WTC building 7 came down, and you win, ill never say anything about 9/11 ever again


im not too worried about, because you cant/wont find any evidence supporting the medias claims


----------



## Keenly (Dec 8, 2009)

just to add to what hayduke was saying to you


can you explain how bill clintons blowjob investigation was given well over 3 times the funding that the 9/11 commission investigators were given?


----------



## potka (Dec 8, 2009)

Keenly said:


> this thread is about the lies we have been fed
> 
> 
> this thread is about physics
> ...


I'm not hatin i'm just sayin. I havn't really looked through the thread or at your "evidence".
In my mind i see no way for our government to benefit from this. George Bush got extreme criticism, and lost many followers because of what happened on 9/11. Not only did it make him look bad but it made our country (the current world power...HORRAH) look very weak. On top of that many people lost there lives. And your asking why the trade towers fell down? i really dont know but from what i remember it was from the jet fuel leaking out of the planes which in turn weakened the structure of the building to the point in which it fell down.
furthermore these are all theories ALL OF THEM. You really dont have any concrete proof which is why i called you all retarded. i'm guessing you guys believe in aliens too? and no i'm not talking of the people who have entered the country illegally.

And to your other question why investigate something that doesn't need to be investigated? We know who did it...


----------



## Keenly (Dec 8, 2009)

actually you have the entire event backwards




its not i that needs to provide any proof



its the governments job to prove to the people that what they were told is what actually happened, and they have failed, *horribly*, in proving to us that 19 douchebags (9 of which are still alive) with boxcutters did this


the indestructible pass port

building 7

flight 93 never existing

flight 77 not only *not* crashing into the pentagon, but also, not one single time during the flight, did the cockpit door ever open



basically, the official story is impossible


so that only means 1 other option, we were lied to


----------



## Jack*Herrer420 (Dec 9, 2009)

Man Keenly, I agree with most of what you say, but come on. 9/11 an inside job? That's ridiculous. Maybe you should watch some south park, that might help you understand.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 9, 2009)

Jack*Herrer420 said:


> Man Keenly, I agree with most of what you say, but come on. 9/11 an inside job? That's ridiculous. Maybe you should watch some south park, that might help you understand.


 you have not examined the evidence man

so many things dont add up that its impossible for it to have gone down the way they say it did


this wasnt the first time one of the towers had a plane hit it 



a military plane hit the empire state building in 1945


this is what happened to the building....in 1945


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 9, 2009)

potka said:


> You all now that this happened eight years ago right?


Murder has no statue of limitations.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 9, 2009)

potka said:


> ...this thread is about conspiracy theroies....


This thread is about the truth of what happen that day.


----------



## Bogartholomew (Dec 9, 2009)

Just a wee bit ignorant to think that humans are the ONLY life forms in the entire solar system as well. Granted, who the eff knows what an "alien" looks like, but it's just silly to think that humans are the only life forms. Pyramids amaze the F*** out of me personally. I don't see how something that perfect could be built by Egyptians with rudementary tools and that small window of time to do it in. 

while on the topic of conspiracy, 2012..... Y2K all over again? We even made a MOVIE about it this time lol If anybody can give some amazing proof out of nowhere than please inform me. Just sounds like a big crock o' poo

911, wouldn't put it past our snakey @$$ government to pull something like that as an excuse to finish the unfinished business the first Bush started back in the day. Not to mention there is a TON of money in the crude oil business. 

DESPITE the fact that one of the leading countries in oil supply is right above the US, Canada. Anybody ever wonder why gas generally stays around $2.50 a gallon? Well Canada's oil supply is burried under an extremely large layer of rock. Thus it is only profitable for Canadia to drill and supply it to the US when the prices have eclipsed $2.50. With all the modern machinery available these days I don't see why the damn rock isn't blasted away and gas could go back to where it should be. Although oil is not the answer for the future, many other cleaner/cheaper alternatives. 

Over and Out


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 9, 2009)

potka said:


> I'm not hatin i'm just sayin. I havn't really looked through the thread or at your "evidence".


If you haven't looked at the evidence how can you possibly make a statement about it?



potka said:


> In my mind i see no way for our government to benefit from this.


You are joking right? Look at the billions the military industrial complex has made since these illegal wars began. Look at the patriot at to keep US under control. Your mind must be closed if you can't see what the elite in government gain by this false flag attack.



potka said:


> George Bush got extreme criticism, and lost many followers because of what happened on 9/11. Not only did it make him look bad but it made our country (the current world power...HORRAH) look very weak.


It didn't make him look bad ... the corporate media build those assholes up as our savors in "keeping us safe from another attack" which was pretty easy for them since they were behind 911.



potka said:


> On top of that many people lost there lives.


That's right and their murderers have yet to be held accountable.




potka said:


> And your asking why the trade towers fell down?


Of course we are asking questions ... when skyscrapers design to withstand fire and plane impact come crashing straight down in seconds with no resistance ... of course there are going to be questions.




potka said:


> i really dont know but from what i remember it was from the jet fuel leaking out of the planes which in turn weakened the structure of the building to the point in which it fell down.


Ah ... no ... the fuel burned off 15 minutes after impact and the temperature never got hot enough to damage the steel ... infra-red photos prove this, which the bogus 911 commission ignored.




potka said:


> furthermore these are all theories ALL OF THEM. You really dont have any concrete proof which is why i called you all retarded.


Well you can start calling yourself retarded because we do have concrete proof of nanothermite found in the dust of the WTC ... some of it inactive. That's science ... not theories.



potka said:


> i'm guessing you guys believe in aliens too?


Many people do ... but that has NOTHING to do with 911 ... and is a feeble attempt on your part to dismiss the event.



potka said:


> and no i'm not talking of the people who have entered the country illegally.


So ... it still has no bearing on what happen that day.



potka said:


> And to your other question why investigate something that doesn't need to be investigated? We know who did it...


The point is we DON'T know who did it ... we only have the government's bullshit story that doesn't add up ... only a person blind to the fact would make a statement like that. People want a REAL investigation not some whitewash like the 911 commission where the elite didn't have to testify under oath or in public. Go educate yourself to avoid making uneducated statements.


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 9, 2009)

Keenly said:


> this thread is about the lies we have been fed
> 
> 
> this thread is about physics
> ...


I have been saying the same since i started with this thread keen. 
It _should _be very easy to prove us all wrong and shut us the fuck up. Its all science and since 0% of the official story (or anyone backing it) uses ANY science, then that leaves us wondering just _how_ proud a "proud american" can be?


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 9, 2009)

Jack*Herrer420 said:


> Man Keenly, I agree with most of what you say, but come on. 9/11 an inside job? That's ridiculous. Maybe you should watch some south park, that might help you understand.



You watch alot of southpark eh? I take it you have seen a few mainstream media reports on this subject? 

you might wanna lay off the southpark for a few days and read. whats "ridiculous" is the mainstream is not using science in their equation.
Did you see the 911 commissioner who admitted he had the "most knowledge on the subject" ? (lets just say that you know more/as much as he does, THAT is ridiculous!


----------



## Mindmelted (Dec 9, 2009)

More stories......


----------



## potka (Dec 9, 2009)

Well how about this. Even IF what you are saying is true. Does it matter anymore? no. And i forgot who said it but the war in Iraq just costs us money. The way USA makes money is because we sell weapons to OTHER COUNTRIES. And we have been doing that for years, even before 911.


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 9, 2009)

potka said:


> Well how about this. Even IF what you are saying is true. Does it matter anymore? no.


i guess ur right , it dont matter no more , no big deal , i guess that is minor compared to what you would let them get away with. 
HOW CAN 911 NOT MATTER ?



potka said:


> And i forgot who said it but the war in Iraq just costs us money.


Yes with "us" being the key word, you are right we are paying for that war. 
*They* , with "they" being the keyword have made billions off that war. (all profit, except a minor overhead of a ton of lives)

just read this thread (it starts on page 1 ) that should get you current on things.........


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Dec 9, 2009)

I think if you don't believe in aliens you are not thinking logically.

Out of billions of stars and billions of planets there isn't one other planet with life on it?

Believing in aliens is logical. Believing they come to Earth and anally probe rednecks is a bit far-fetched.


----------



## TheBlazehero (Dec 9, 2009)

WTC building number 7 not even included in 9/11 Commission report. Omitted. For what reason? Videos never released of the 'plane' hitting the Pentagon. Why don't they want us to know the truth?


----------



## Mindmelted (Dec 9, 2009)

Thee plane,Thee plane


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 9, 2009)

potka said:


> i'm guessing you guys believe in aliens too? and no i'm not talking of the people who have entered the country illegally.


Is it any more crazy to "believe" in god? personally I find it far less plausible!



potka said:


> Well how about this. Even IF what you are saying is true. Does it matter anymore? no. And i forgot who said it but the war in Iraq just costs us money. The way USA makes money is because we sell weapons to OTHER COUNTRIES. And we have been doing that for years, even before 911.


There are over 4,000 US families that would argue with your statement...and foreign countries literally own trillions of our debt= they hold US soil as collateral...How will we pay this back?...How long until foreclosure?



Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> I think if you don't believe in aliens you are not thinking logically.
> 
> Out of billions of stars and billions of planets there isn't one other planet with life on it?
> 
> Believing in aliens is logical. Believing they come to Earth and anally probe rednecks is a bit far-fetched.


If I was an alien...this would be high on my "to-do list"...

Using the alien thing to discredit "truthers" is classic. I over heard a history teacher, before showing the 9/11 ground zero video, telling the students about how mad it makes him that people think that there is a conspiracy...he used a very compelling argument...He said that most of these conspiracy theory nuts, also believe that the lunar landing was faked...then he talked about the space race, and how if the US had faked the moon landing...don't you think the USSR would have called us on it?...good point.

As for the fire weakening the steel...I saw the pre 9-11-06 "loose change"...the narrator gives about 20 examples of high rise buildings, built in the 70's, that burned longer than the towers...some for days...and did NOT collapse...The fire following the B-52 crashing into the empire state building...burned longer...and it is STILL standing. By the way, I highly recommend the first 15 min or so of this film, starting with Mcnamara's involvement with previous planned terrror attacks to justify an invasion of Cuba...the FEMA and Justice Dept's Terror booklets printed with a picture of the twin towers in cross-hairs ('98 and 2000 respectively)...the study of the effects of a 757 hitting the pentagon (complete with pics of scale models) with consultation from the then pentagon employee/future pilot of flight 77 following his retirement from the navy and taking a job with American Airlines...Oh and then there is flight 93 landing in cleveland where ~200 passengers were evacuated (close to the # of people on the 4 planes)

And since when do planes that hold 200 passengers fly at 25% occupancy?



In general, firefighters are damn fine citizens. I have worked with many.
When these guys talk about fire...they know what they are talking about. The flashes and explosions reported...lots of them...what they are lying?

One of the towers fire was so minimal that the FF on scene said it could be knocked down with 2 freaking hoses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 2nd tower hit fell 1st after a relatively short burn!!!!

TruTV 10pm tonight...lets see how brave Gov Ventura is...


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 9, 2009)

TheBlazehero said:


> WTC building number 7 not even included in 9/11 Commission report. Omitted. For what reason? Videos never released of the 'plane' hitting the Pentagon. Why don't they want us to know the truth?


The CIA, FBI, and FEMA...all had offices in bldg 7....

Oh...and the same demolition company that was on scene for the Murrow Bldg recovery/clean-up...were hired for the WTC...FBI, ATF records taken care of there...and voila! no more public questioning of the NWO and corrupt elements of Gov/finance.

Or the portion of gold from the WTC found in a 10 wheel truck and motorcaid found abandoned in a basement tunnel...where was the gold going...what happened to the rest?


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 10, 2009)

Conspiracy Theory 9/11 Jesse Ventura Part 1 of 4 Episode 2
[youtube]Tkio6TF0Ufg[/youtube]

Conspiracy Theory 9/11 Jesse Ventura Part 2 of 4 Episode 2
[youtube]M8490zVpDBs&annotation_id=annotation_485841&feature=iv][/youtube]

Conspiracy Theory 9/11 Jesse Ventura Part 3 of 4 Episode 2
[youtube]s48kHu-zDhE&annotation_id=annotation_93557&feature=iv[/youtube]

Conspiracy Theory 9/11 Jesse Ventura Part 4 of 4
[youtube]ZNQYuV4nqjI&annotation_id=annotation_865218&feature=iv[/youtube]

After you guys watch this please post your comments on what you thought of the show.


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 10, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> The CIA, FBI, and FEMA...all had offices in bldg 7....
> 
> Oh...and the same demolition company that was on scene for the Murrow Bldg recovery/clean-up...were hired for the WTC...FBI, ATF records taken care of there...and voila! no more public questioning of the NWO and corrupt elements of Gov/finance.
> 
> Or the portion of gold from the WTC found in a 10 wheel truck and motorcaid found abandoned in a basement tunnel...where was the gold going...what happened to the rest?


along with the whole cali power scam........all gone with the wind. How do we loose a building of that much significance, without even putting ANY reason in the official report ?
The few things we just named are _just_ millions of dollars that _someone_ profited.
thats just a tiny bit of profit from building 7 alone.................then the war starts , now we owe china more then our land is worth.
Why, why is china gonna keep funding the terrorist? 
Cant say i know the answer to that one, but i imagine it has something to do with power.
i bet one thing, i bet we dont run into china fakin wars.


alright , i been holdin this one in for years just because i wasnt sure, now im gonna put it out there..... There were no "hijackings" them planes took off knowing what they were gonna do....... If there were people on them planes like they say, then i guess there should be some pretty pissed off family members?
You can do all the research you would like and you will never find a family member from any one of those folks supposed to be on a plane. IF there were innocent folks on them planes then yes i will feel stupid as fuck for calling out somethin so important. I can honestly say i have done as much research as they have avalible and there is no family members of passengers... NONE. (just a few un-burnt ID's of hijackers)


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 10, 2009)

geez Reb, i was just about to go to youtube but u already got it posted. Nice.
lets see what jesse says, i dont have much confidence in a former governor , but i like what i seen last week, so we shall see.....


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 10, 2009)

The thing I found most interesting is the black boxes and the government lie that they were never found ... when in all history no black box has ever NOT been found ... yet they couldn't find all four? Plus the fact that Mike B was an eye witness to seeing the recovery of one of the black boxes ... and was told that two others were found as well.

And why can't people look at the evidence they have stored in hanger 17 at Kennedy airport? If they are not hiding anything why isn't anyone allow in that hanger?

What about the witnesses that heard the explosions ... why was the one guy's testimony about the explosives behind closed doors and why wasn't it put in the obviously bogus 911 report?

For me the show wasn't long enough ... there is so much more that could be covered, but it was a good show. Spread it around. Let folks see for themselves the lies the government is putting out.

And what did you think of Mike B statement about a hijacker was on board before the plane took off and they knew about it yet allow the plane to take off anyway.

Why wouldn't those people that worked for the airline talk to Ventura ... were they really in fear of their lives?

Excellent show ... no doubt about it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 10, 2009)

[URL="http://www.bushstole04.com/911/911_plausible.htm"]How 9/11 Was Done-One Plausible Explanation[/url]
9/11 was a master plot, concocted by a handfull of Israelis and dual passport Americans and carried out by the resources of the Mossad.
Larry Silverstein leases a nearly worthless dinosaur WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbestos the buildings were stuffed with and needed to be cleaned up, the cost of which may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over insured against terrorist acts and hires an Israeli security firm. From that moment on the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the Israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front.




http://www.bushstole04.com/newworld/mind_control.htmhttp://www.bushstole04.com/newworld/mind_control.htm*Controlling The Minds Of The Masses: How It Is Done And Why*
Mind Control is a loaded term, often associated with science fiction and the fantastical by people who are not aware of its very real history. Images of Orwells 1984 or Aldous Huxleys Brave New World are conjured; dystopic nightmare landscapes assumed only possible in pulp literature. What many people do not know or realize is that these books were based on actual ideas and theories that had been put forward by social and scientific elites for decades, and in some cases, centuries. The desire of the ruling class to understand the mechanics of the human mind has left a trail of misery dating back to earliest recorded history. It was not enough for them to subjugate the masses through force; the Elites wanted the people to accept their slavery, to integrate it into their psyches. They wanted us to be thankful for our servitude, for only then, would they truly be in control of the world.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> After you guys watch this please post your comments on what you thought of the show.


Great information. However, i don't like the way the show is set up. It's too corny. It's similar to a "ghost chasers" show. Wish it was set up more like a documentary... 

GLAD IT IS ON TV THOUGH !


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 10, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> The thing I found most interesting is the black boxes and the government lie that they were never found ... when in all history no black box has ever NOT been found ... yet they couldn't find all four? Plus the fact that Mike B was an eye witness to seeing the recovery of one of the black boxes ... and was told that two others were found as well.


i agree, this is huge for us.
 



GrowRebel said:


> What about the witnesses that heard the explosions ... why was the one guy's testimony about the explosives behind closed doors and why wasn't it put in the obviously bogus 911 report?


Their were hundreds of witnesses to "hearing explosions" but we know that dont "fit" into their *story*.
 



GrowRebel said:


> ... there is so much more that could be covered, but it was a good show. Spread it around. Let folks see for themselves the lies the government is putting out.


I just hope Jesse follows up on this one..... he said he would ? At least is out there to see though. 



GrowRebel said:


> And what did you think of Mike B statement about a hijacker was on board before the plane took off and they knew about it yet allow the plane to take off anyway.


not sure if i believe that one, but it is very plausible. 
 



GrowRebel said:


> Why wouldn't those people that worked for the airline talk to Ventura ... were they really in fear of their lives?


Well after seeing Barry Jennings just come up dead, with STILL no release on why, just very shortly after telling his story, i would say YES they are very scared for their lives. (if there is a "they" .....again , i just like to stick to the "hard evidence") 
 



GrowRebel said:


> Excellent show ... no doubt about it.


Yes, more and more of this just might persuade the folks who simply do not pay attention.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 11, 2009)

*Why Is There So Much Resistance to 9-11 Truth*
Ostrich Head in SandSuch reactions are emotionally based. 9/11 is a very emotionally charged issue. The source of the denial and resistance is FEAR. The implications of 9/11 Truth are very scary for most people to take in. Given that a part of our government's job description is keeping its citizens safe, it's terrifying to consider that a secret rogue part of our government will do just the opposite -- mass murder those very citizens, in order to advance dark agendas -- like wars for corporate empire. To further consider that associated 'secret teams' would then put out corporate media cover-up stories, in the form of an elaborate fantasy story backed up with planted evidence, and to think that story was nearly universally accepted without question -- this is the stuff of nightmares.

Then there is the difficulty of accepting the self-image shattering realization that we were duped by such cover story lies. 9/11 Truth suggests a very uncomfortable and disturbing worldview, especially to those new to such concepts. The intensity of fear brought up by these vast implications causes defense mechanisms to take over our rational thought processes. Such denial most often overrides rationality. 

How many times has this happened to you?
Everyday! 
You are explaining to someone some of the rational, logical reasons why the official story of 9/11 can't be true, perhaps explaining how WTC 7 fell in the exact manner of a professionally planned controlled demolition -- a job which would typically take weeks to prepare -- when out comes a 'thought stopper' phrase like:

"*That's just another conspiracy theory!*" or ... "*Do you also believe in Big Foot and tin foil hats?"
*The deniers favorite line of denial!
Or perhaps the person gets angry and/or agitated. *Facts no longer matter at that point,* and you can tell the person does not want to hear any more. For example, the following response came from someone after they were given a 20-minute summary of 9/11 Truth information:

"I wouldn't believe that, even if it were true!"

That reaction defies all logic and reason. But it clearly illustrates just how irrational some peoples' defenses can be. Here are a few more honest responses/defenses:

"As long as my wife and kids are fine and we can live the life style we have, the truth is, I don't really care what happened on 9/11."
These deniers don't give a fuck about our country ... 
"I would not want to live in a world where such a thing could be true."
"You can't expect someone to listen to information that turns their world upside down."
"I'm not sure I want to know. If this is true, then up would be down and down would be up. My life would never be the same."
 "Look, I have to admit that I seriously resist anyone messing with my worldview!" 

*NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable*
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

Stay tune for more 911 news.


----------



## maxamus1 (Dec 11, 2009)

there is so much more he could have talked about but i know it is only an hour show.


----------



## redivider (Dec 11, 2009)

i liked your post on the 757's door being closed the entire time.... it's basically all the evidence needed to prove that nobody ever entered or exited the cockpit of that aircraft... not when it was in the air.... 

so the claim is that a bunch of highjackers took over the plane, but the door never opened... it says it updates every four seconds... i would think that it would take more than 4 seconds to make the pilots take their buckles off, get them up and out of their seats, and out of the cockpit... so that should say the door is open, at least at one instance during flight... yet it doesn't open... it's a nail in the coffin for me... there is no way group of terrorists would take over the plane without that door opening at least once.... 

nicely done.... i want to see someone refute this one.....................................


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 11, 2009)

redivider said:


> i liked your post on the 757's door being closed the entire time.... it's basically all the evidence needed to prove that nobody ever entered or exited the cockpit of that aircraft... not when it was in the air....
> 
> so the claim is that a bunch of highjackers took over the plane, but the door never opened... it says it updates every four seconds... i would think that it would take more than 4 seconds to make the pilots take their buckles off, get them up and out of their seats, and out of the cockpit... so that should say the door is open, at least at one instance during flight... yet it doesn't open... it's a nail in the coffin for me... there is no way group of terrorists would take over the plane without that door opening at least once....
> 
> nicely done.... i want to see someone refute this one.....................................


don't hold your breath on that one ... the deniers will do what they always do ... deny and ignore the facts.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 11, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Great information. However, i don't like the way the show is set up. It's too corny. It's similar to a "ghost chasers" show. Wish it was set up more like a documentary...
> 
> GLAD IT IS ON TV THOUGH !


Agree.

The show started off with a bang. It seems as though as soon as Mike B flaked (understandably scared) the show kinda stopped...I wonder if Jesse and his team may have been spooked as well.

as far as Mike B and the Airport employee's knowing that a hijacker was already in the cockpit...not likely (though none of this is!). I think the planes were flown using the Global Hawk technology.

The "Loose Change" video references a NASA fuel experiment where a 727 was full of crash test dummies and flew for 12 hours (with some ridiculous # of takeoffs and landings) over Edwards AFB before being purposely crashed. This plane was flown using the same tech as the Global Hawk.

The same video also shows the aftermath of the cruise missile attack on Slobodan Milosevic's personal residence...the ~15 foot hole was IDENTICAL to the hole in the Pentagon. It also shows the grass in front untouched, even though the official story is that the plane skipped across the ground.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 13, 2009)

WeAreChangeLA confronts 9-11 criminal 'General' Richard Myers(full video) 

Richard Myers Part 1 of 3
[youtube]0y3SeRpQejM[/youtube]

WeAreChangeLA confronts 9-11 Criminal General Richard Myers Part 2 of 3
[youtube]pbMPaPK7e1Y&feature=video_response[/youtube]

WeAreChangeLA confronts 9-11 Criminal General Richard Myers Part 3 of 3
[youtube]15QrS0vIpus&feature=video_response[/youtube]


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 13, 2009)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/22120Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence
Careful investigation leads one to notice that a number of intriguing groups of people and organizations converged on the events of September 11th, 2001. An example is the group of men who were members of Cornell Universitys Quill & Dagger society. This included Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisors Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley, Marsh & McLennan executive Stephen Friedman, and the founder of Kroll Associates, Jules Kroll. Another interconnected group of organizations is linked to these Cornell comrades, and is even more interesting in terms of its members being integral to the events of 9/11, and having benefited from those events.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9641Special Report: YEARS OF DECEIT: US OPENLY ACCEPTS BIN LADEN LONG DEAD\
He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn't nuts is finally saying what they have known for years.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 13, 2009)

http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!!
In an editorial entitled "America the Target", published in the Jerusalem Post of September 30, 2001 Evans -- a Khazar Jew masquerading as a Christian -- asked Harel about Arab terrorism and if it would come to America. Harel told Evans that Arab terrorists would likely strike the "tallest building in New York City" because it was a "phallic symbol". The fact that 9/11 was planned by the Mossad through the admittance of Isser Harel is well documented and appears in a book written by Michael Evans.
*Webmaster's Commentary:* 
_"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell
you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."_ --
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the 
target="_blank">Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.


----------



## TheBlazehero (Dec 15, 2009)

this is not an isolated incident. there is a strategy behind the moves. pawns, pawns, spiders weaving webs. this shit is real, we are under attack always, in the silence, behind the scenes. anyone who believes al qaeda or bin laden did this is a fucking tool. sorry, but honestly, you're a fucking tool.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 15, 2009)

TheBlazehero said:


> this is not an isolated incident. there is a strategy behind the moves. pawns, pawns, spiders weaving webs. this shit is real, we are under attack always, in the silence, behind the scenes. anyone who believes al qaeda or bin laden did this is a fucking tool. sorry, but honestly, you're a fucking tool.


thats not really a polite way to inform them their government is evil =/


people are not going to listen to you if you start off by insulting them


----------



## TheBlazehero (Dec 15, 2009)

i don't want them to listen to me, i want them to do their own research and decide what they think is the truth. listening to lies and looking the other way is a slap in the face to all those who have died on 9/11 and since then because of deceit and lies. this goes even higher than bush and cheney.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 15, 2009)

Good info, Grow. If it's true that Bin Laden is dead... that could push this movement further.


----------



## Resin225 (Dec 15, 2009)

How many people were involved/needed to carry out 9-11 if it was an inside job? I'm just curious what everyone thinks.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 15, 2009)

Resin225 said:


> How many people were involved/needed to carry out 9-11 if it was an inside job? I'm just curious what everyone thinks.


I have nooooo idea. The government keeps secrets everyday... so people keeping their mouth shut wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## hempcurescancer (Dec 15, 2009)

TheBlazehero said:


> this is not an isolated incident. there is a strategy behind the moves. pawns, pawns, spiders weaving webs. this shit is real, we are under attack always, in the silence, behind the scenes. anyone who believes al qaeda or bin laden did this is a fucking tool. sorry, but honestly, you're a fucking tool.


+rep on that shit


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 15, 2009)

I see this thread still insists on walking around in the dark ... here yah go.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 15, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> I have nooooo idea. The government keeps secrets everyday... so people keeping their mouth shut wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 15, 2009)

hahaha 

i take it "so keeping their mouth shut wouldn't be a problem" is where that came from..


----------



## TheBlazehero (Dec 15, 2009)

Resin225 said:


> How many people were involved/needed to carry out 9-11 if it was an inside job? I'm just curious what everyone thinks.


think about how government works. think about military. chain of command. follow orders. don't break code. left hand and right hand don't know what the other is doing. silence or watch your back. don't question authority. how many people? in the US government alone? maybe only five to ten people who actually knew what was going to go down. this conspiracy reaches beyond the US government.


----------



## redivider (Dec 15, 2009)

i guess cracker jax is against 9/11 truthers.... typical republican.... 

trust the government, if a republican is in power...

if a democrat is in power the government is the most evil thing in the world....

eyes wide shut as always.......


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 15, 2009)

redivider said:


> i guess cracker jax is against 9/11 truthers.... typical republican....
> 
> trust the government, if a republican is in power...
> 
> ...


Agreed. that's why i stay away from parties... it lets you look from the outside-in.


----------



## redivider (Dec 15, 2009)

i'm a liberal.... 

i'm not fanatical though.... i don't support EVERY thing the democratic party, or a democratic leader proposes.... 

anyways.... let's see him try to debunk the 757 flight recording door's never open in flight thing.... probably start insulting and using words he himself doesn't completely understand....

i'll be quiet, before the negative rep starts flying in....


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 17, 2009)

I'm an independent as I have stated many times, not republican (brrr).

I go by issues and apply logic. I follow action, and not words.

That's why we are usually on opposite sides of issues.

So with all of ur copy/pasting of drivel and twisted context, you can't tell us how many ppl it would have taken to pull something like this off?  I'm shocked!!


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm an independent as I have stated many times, not republican (brrr).
> 
> I go by *issues and apply logic.* I follow action, and not words.
> 
> ...


On this subject, i have to disagree. 2 planes, 3 buildings in New York? Does that sound logical? Seriously... 


wtc 3,4,5,6 all stood. That logical?







Columbia Space Shuttle Investigation $175 million
Lewinsky investigation at $30 million
Challenger Investigation $100 million

9/11 $15 million

How is it logical to pay more for a dick sucking investigation than the worst event in US history?

It's not.


And how many times do you copy and paste, Cracka ? Don't be a hypocrite.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 17, 2009)

It was a first. lots of preconceptions get "blown" away.

How many buildings have EVER been flown into FULL speed fully loaded with fuel?

None.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It was a first. lots of preconceptions get "blown" away.
> 
> How many buildings have EVER been flown into FULL speed fully loaded with fuel?
> 
> None.


Even though all the fuel burns off at explosion... i'll give you that just for shits and giggles. ( they were built to take hits from planes btw )

Did the fuel splash over buildings 5 and 6, across the street and take down 7? 

2 planes, 3 buildings = Ridiculous. But what are your thoughts on the cost for the investigation? Do you really find it logical to pay more for a dick sucking than 9/11? 

I'm not saying you have to believe Cheney had a red button sitting beside him and pushed it that day... or it was even the bush admin. I don't know who it was... I just want an honest investigation. $15 mill is a joke.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 17, 2009)

I'm not sure if our government could actually plan and hold a meeting complete with coffee and doughnuts for 15million...much less do an adequate investigation and print a book!

I just looked back at the "see how the gov. is spending [...]" thread, and though I cannot find anything verifying this...someone said it cost 30 million to update the recovery.org website.

15 million does seem a little on the cheap side!...but hey..it really was not that big of a deal right? Cut and dry...19 hijackers flew 4 planes into stuff that was pretty hard...but these guys are professionals...they were so good that over half of them freaking survived...That allah dude is seriously powerful!


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 17, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> they were so good that over half of them freaking survived...


 
lmfao +rep


----------



## TheBlazehero (Dec 17, 2009)

yes...must have been osama who planted particles of Thermite. Mix that shit with all those tons of jet fuel and I bet it gets over 5000 degrees celsius. give me a fucking break. abre los ojos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585#docid=24331179876025982


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

don't forget how they found one of the hijackers passport a few blocks from the WTCs. 

It's crazy how the jet fuel can take down the towers, yet not burn up paper.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 17, 2009)

[youtube]SrHvSE_4JJQ[/youtube]


basically there is this HUGE fireball

"supposedly" the four black boxes from the 2 planes were never recovered (thats never happened before in history)

however

this dudes passport comes flying out of his pocket, through the fireball, through the building itself, through the cockpit and plane debris, floats its way down onto the street

people pick it up and go IT WAS HIM !


just fucking ridiculous


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

Keenly said:


> just fucking ridiculous


Yet, we're the crazy ones..


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 17, 2009)

Those buildings were NEVER designed to have large planes flown into them at high speed ...  U make it up as U go along.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11


> Surprisingly, Robertson claimed that the WTC Towers were designed to survive plane crashes at speeds of *180 mph*.[28] He also repeated this claim in an interview with Steven Jones in October 2006.[29] However, these statements are contradicted by Skilling, who indicated that &#8220;_a previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling *at 600 mph without collapsing.*_&#8221;[30] Robertson is also somewhat contradicted by his own statement in 1984-5 that there was &#8220;*little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked*_._&#8221;[31]



again... 2 planes, 3 buildings= ridiculous.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Those buildings were NEVER designed to have large planes flown into them at high speed ...  U make it up as U go along.


(this took 2 minutes)
Well we could argue semantics I suppose...but:


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.


http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

edit: well here is Skilling saying it in '93


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 17, 2009)

Blah blah blah ... No One designed those buildings to be hit by large jumbo jets at 500 M.P.H.


Case closed....like ur investigation chances....... but keep on flailing about. 

Americans have long forgotten 9/11 truthers..... be glad ... they think ur nutz.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Blah blah blah ... No One designed those buildings to be hit by large jumbo jets at 500 M.P.H.
> 
> 
> Case closed....like ur investigation chances....... but keep on flailing about.
> ...


lol Got nothing, man? seriously?

Ignorance is bliss.. what can i say?

You're doing what Med does... it's a shame


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 17, 2009)

Where's the more again? 

How's that investigation going?

  

18% unemployment..... think it through fellas ... think it through. 

No one cares anymore.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Where's the more again?
> 
> How's that investigation going?
> 
> ...


Sadly, you're right. Investigation isn't going so well and people don't seem to care. Even my buddies that are "truthers"... don't really care. They just say..."Government.. what do you expect" or something of that nature...


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 17, 2009)

U need to get Bush back in the game. 

He was ur ammo ...


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 17, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> U need to get Bush back in the game.
> 
> He was ur ammo ...


lol He was almost too easy. Obama has made some dumbass moves... but he's not on bush's level yet... 


[youtube]y6S0dYkIN20[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 18, 2009)

Bush kept us safe. ur right, Obama isn't on his level, not at all.

The only mistakes Bush made were domestic, in not reigning in the spending by Congress.

His foreign policy was dead on. Bush didn't govern by poll, exactly what was needed.

Let's just face some 9/11 truther facts.

You were all used. Used to spread discontent so Dem's could take back Washington.

Now they have their power, and don't care about ur issue any longer. You have served ur purpose, and can be tossed aside. 

You have been tossed aside....


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 18, 2009)

Iraq war was a good foreign policy move? WMD..give me a break. 

Afganistan... maybe (we gota get those evil terrorist  ). Iraq... hell no. "Saddam is evil !" So why don't we attack half the world? (We slowly will till the NWO is fully developed. The globe will become one state one of these days  Good bye Constitution)

u.s. government = terrorism. We've killed WAY more civilians than any "suicide bomber" ever will. War = money for the rich and power. They don't care about our safety. 

The day i'll fight for this country will be the day foreigners are storming onto our beaches...

I enjoy how you rip on the government as much as you can when obama is in office, then you use it as your weapon for bush's reign. Obama hasn't done anything different. Your tactics are very hypocritical. But i guess that is the definition of politics...

Edit: again... 2 planes, 3 buildings. passport of "terrorist" found in NYC. Believing in this is like believing that jesus walked on water. it's just ridiculous.


----------



## redivider (Dec 18, 2009)

bush as a president was a joke, a fucking joke, his foreign and domestic policies have made america into the laughing stock of the world...

CJ cringes at the government for wanting to regulate how much energy is being used, but he doesn't even address the fundamental asswiping of the constitution the Patriot Act brought....

it's all selective, he's as independent as rush limbaugh, sean hannity and glenn beck...

he looks at all the issues alright, he doesn't look at all the solutions though....


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 18, 2009)

Yeah Cracker you are cracked on W's foreign policy! 

Let's see...Attack Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of stopping TERROR!...all while the country is drunk with Nationalism...remember all the car window flags?

Neither Country had anything to do with 9/11, and like others have said...If we were just being "A Global Force for Good"...throw a dart at the continent of Africa and you are likely to find a worse tyrant than Saddam, with people far more suppressed than the Shia's of Iraq.

So why would we be at war with THOSE two countries for going on a decade?

Look what is in between...If it were not for Russia, I think it would have been a done deal. Iran. We could not go into Iran without installing US friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan...


----------



## EnkiGrower (Dec 18, 2009)

Put on the blinders, keep quiet and find happiness, cause the truth won't set you free it will infuriate you.
A FEW THOUGHTS....
WTC7?
Maybe one building falls out of the two, but both, symmetrical and at free fall speeds!
No black box!
Project for New american Century outlined this same scenario.
Military stand down.
USA PATRIOT act was written before 9/11 and killed the bill of rights.
Iraq WMD
Saudi-american ties
Abramoff Atta ties
Only 5 visible frames of "plane" hitting pentagon
9/11 commission-thats just a joke

what more, only one of these issues would cause doubt for me and thats not even all of them. Regardless of the events of and leading up to that day, the investigation proves there is something we aren't being told.

But who cares right, the country has been at war for almost a decade trying to find some dudes in a cave, plus we attacked a country that had nothing to do with anything about 9/11.

Thank god for the soothing calming effect of the reefer, because thinking about this makes me nuts....man I wish I didn't see this thread


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 18, 2009)

50 million Iraqis freed, dictator dead, Al Queda humiliated and pushed out of that region......




Ur right ... it was terrible!!!!


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 18, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> 50 million Iraqis freed, dictator dead, Al Queda humiliated and pushed out of that region......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


100,000 dead...4.7 million displaced...Al Queda was not there before US forces...I sure hope nobody tries to free me from our dictator


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 18, 2009)

They chose to target civilians, not us. They chose to bomb city centers, not us. They chose to hide behind women and children. They chose terrorism, not us.

Not us. We freed those ppl, and they know it, even if you don't.


----------



## TheBlazehero (Dec 18, 2009)

did you see that on the tele? all the world's a stage...


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 19, 2009)

Does that pass as cogent in ur neighborhood?


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No one cares anymore.


Look at the polls , YOU dont care and that is sickning. It is not even in the history books yet , so i dont think it "old" yet. Just because you have doubled in age since 911 does not mean "no one cares anymore" . I refuse to let the schools teach my kids about a subject they are ignorant to. and yes i will admit that most of us are ignorant to this , so that is the reason this will *never *be a "fact" in this household. 

oh and i never EVER needed bush to dispute this, there is no one single president *that *stupid.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 19, 2009)

What polls? Post them ... recent ones. 

My point is made.

The American ppl have moved on to much more important things. Like food and clothing. At 18% unemployment, no one cares about crackpot theories.

It's all but over and it never entered mainstream from the start.

Now it's strictly a wingnut issue.

You should wear a T shirt, so ppl can steer clear.


----------



## redivider (Dec 19, 2009)

cracka doesn't care because it looks bad for the people he supports politically.

a lot of people care, the ones that "don't anymore" are people who have a lot to loose, or who stand to be greatly ashamed by anything uncovered....

we will never know what really happened on 9/11.... we do know what we won't know, the truth...........


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 19, 2009)

Ridiculous ... as usual.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Ridiculous ... as usual.


almost as ridiculous as 2 planes taking down 3 buildings... almost. 







Seriously don't know how people can believe such a thing.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 19, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> It is not even in the history books yet , so i dont think it "old" yet.


Actually it is(in H.S. History books)



CrackerJax said:


> What polls? Post them ... recent ones.
> 
> My point is made.
> 
> The American ppl have moved on to much more important things. Like food and clothing. At 18% unemployment


Although you are correct about the apathy and short term memory of the American people as well as the overriding importance of daily necessities of the working poor who are thought of only when convenient...It is ironic that while you are asking for the evidence of recent polls...and concluding that you are correct in the same sentence, you keep quoting an unemployment rate 80% higher than the national average... 

http://www.dol.gov/

Although the site has not been updated for a while, the poll seems active as I had to vote to be able to see the results...?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/


----------



## Keenly (Dec 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> What polls? Post them ... recent ones.
> 
> My point is made.
> 
> ...




thats funny i can name at least 30 acquaintances of mine that care..
.
just because you dont care doesnt mean others dont, and once again if you dont like this thread or this movement, and you have nothing but "no one cares" to say, then your just trying to be a dick on purpose


----------



## Keenly (Dec 19, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> almost as ridiculous as 2 planes taking down 3 buildings... almost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dont forget the other plane that didnt exist, or the other one that not only didnt hit the pentagon, but the cockpit door was never opened


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 19, 2009)

Keenly said:


> dont forget the other plane that didnt exist, or the other one that not only didnt hit the pentagon, but the cockpit door was never opened


yeah, but that's not a thing you just throw out to someone who believes the governments conspiracy theory. start small. work your way up. 

like the passport being found and such.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 19, 2009)

The conspiracy has been answered over and over again..... if you don't have traction now (U don't), u'll never have it.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The conspiracy has been answered over and over again..... if you don't have traction now (U don't), u'll never have it.



your welcome to your opinion crackerjax

the evidence speaks for itself

just because you refuse to look at it doesnt mean its not there


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 19, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The conspiracy has been answered over and over again..... if you don't have traction now (U don't), u'll never have it.



lol know it hasn't... like i've stated before... they (gov) have look more into a dick sucking than 9/11. If you find that information believable, you are extremely naive.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 20, 2009)

I'm very happy to see you guys are ignoring crack and discussing the evidence. Notice how crack has a need to mislead and dismiss the obvious when he feels too many posters are looking at this thread?
It must be very frustration for him and others like him. Just like they said in the CBC report the "truthers" aren't going away any time soon.
I and I know many like me will NEVER STOP until the truth is generally known. To prevent another false flag attack and I for one believe that if not for this movement they would have done another 911 long ago ... they are itching to have one now to rally the sheep to invading Iran. So for me the "truth movement" has saved lives. ... and now to the news ... this report folks ... I never heard until now ... check it ...

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11567Understanding the Hidden Bombing of WTC#6
The split-second precision of the bombing of WTC 6 reveals the sophisticated military planning of the criminal mastermind behind 9-11. The blatant cover-up of this explosion, witnessed by hundreds of gagged members of New York's fire and police departments, is ample evidence of the complicity of the controlled media to hide the truth of what happened on 9-11, along with the mayors of New York City and the U.S. government. 
An amazingly callous Netanyahu told the _New York Times _on 9-11 (when early estimates were about 10,000 dead) that the terror attacks were "very good" for U.S.-Israeli relations. His subsequent comments about how Israel was benefiting from 9-11 were made in Hebrew at Bar-Ilan University, a religious Zionist school, and were directed at an audience that is certainly well aware of Israel's involvement in the false-flag terror of 9-11. 

As I reported in my article "What Caused the WTC 6 Crater?" of July 10, 2002, CNN confirmed to me that the mysterious blast had occurred at precisely the same moment that the second plane struck the South Tower:
Despite the fact that the horrible events of September 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout. A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated WTC 6, the 8-story U.S. Customs House, although no national newspaper or media outlet has said a word about it.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
Bollyn, Christopher, "What Caused the WTC 6 Crater?" July 10, 2002
http://www.bollyn.com/911#article_11159 

Bollyn, "The Mystery of WTC 6," June 23, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/what-happened-to-wtc-6

Bollyn, "An Inconvenient Witness: Sonnenfeld on WTC 6," June 24, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/kurt-sonnenfeld-on-wtc-6
Christopher Bollyn exposed as a 911 frump!, DavidIcke.com, September 2009
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79903

Jack White's 911 Photo Studies
http://www.911studies.com/index.html

_Ha'aretz_ (Israel), "Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel," April 16, 2008
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html




Here's a nice report that I intend on slamming in the face of crack and people like him ... 


THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11
The producers of this piece are offering $1000 to anyone who can disprove the authenticity of any source in this presentation ... so deniers ... this should be the easiest grand you can make plus you will be able to slap us in the face with the check ... that should be fun for you ... but watch folks ... I guarantee we won't get slapped with anything but their usual bullshit.


http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/911-war-promises/NuoViso: "War Promises" (Full lenth documentary)

Millions of people believe that evidence proves that Western intelligence services organized the hideous attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001. Even the mainstream media have stopped defending the official version and now prefer to ignore the issue altogether.
Distrust in Western governments grows as the wars of aggression waged by the USA and NATO continue to be justified with these false flag operations. Ever harsher domestic laws are being passed to crush all outrage and resistance in Western populations ...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16505The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement

Why would Griffins role as top truther  as the intellectual leader of the 9/11 truth movement - lead the magazines editors to consider him one of the 50 people who matter today? Unlike a president, a prime minister, or a pope, he has no political clout; unlike a billionaire, he has no financial clout; and his book sales do not begin to rival those of Dan Brown. Indeed, his books do not even get reviewed in the press. The idea that he is one of the 50 people who matter most in the world today is, as he himself has said, absurd  at least from most angles.
There is, however, one angle from which it does make sense: Given the enormity of the 9/11 attacks and of the policies, both foreign and domestic, that have been justified as responses to those attacks, a movement challenging the official story of the attacks certainly could, in principle, become so influential that its intellectual leader would be a person of consequence.

And the movement has, in fact, grown enormously in both size and credibility since 2004 and 2005, when Griffin published his first two books on the subject  The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions  and began working, with colleague Peter Dale Scott, on an edited volume that was published in 2006 as 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out.
 


HAPPY HOLIDAYS!


----------



## kronic1989 (Dec 20, 2009)

911 was an inside job. Period. No need to prove anything. Its known. Worldwide.


----------



## JimmyPot (Dec 20, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> 50 million Iraqis freed, dictator dead, Al Queda humiliated and pushed out of that region......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha Ha the right would throw your pothead ass in the slammer and treat you like a hard core criminal in a heart beat.Pot heads that support the right have zero since at all.Drink beer play baseball vote right and stop smoking pot and pray to Ronald Reagan every night.Why defend politicians who hate marijuana????


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 20, 2009)

U mean Obama and the dem controlled congress right? Since it is within their power right now (like never before) to decrim weed. And they won't even talk about it.

I don't pray, I pay attention and plan. I'm not getting caught short in the future when the taxes and suffocation of the private sector take hold.

I can make an educated guess that you are woefully unprepared for the very tough future being set up right now by your mentors. yah know, the ones who CARE.

Get ready (if u know how) ... misery comes on slow, but tends to hang around once on the scene. 

it's coming.......


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 20, 2009)

I'm enjoying the new people jumping in this thread supporting a 9/11 investigation!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 20, 2009)

Yes, delusion is popular these days. 

You know something special no one else can see ...


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 20, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, delusion is popular these days.
> 
> You know something special no one else can see ...


You come here and bash all of us, but u have no stones to debate. 

You actually bring up information in the religion discussions because the facts are on your side. You have nothing here but the gov'ts word.

You're right delusion is popular these days, and your in the middle of it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 20, 2009)

I've already dismantled practically every part of the truthers hogwash.

You have somehow overlooked it all ... I'm shocked.

And it's not bashing.... U guys are doing the bashing. UR entire nutty diatribe is bashing. 

Let me clue you in to what Psychologists are saying about folks like you....

* Conspiracy Theories as a Form of Religious Belief: The 9/11 Case *


9/11 Conspiracies: A New Religion by Gad Saad, Ph.D.





Last night, I watched a _National Geographic_ television show titled 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. As I listened to the conspiracists, I was struck by the similarities between their belief systems and associated cognitive processes (or lack thereof) and those inherent to religious narratives. Let me explain.



1) Both religion and grand conspiracies are immune from reason and both are impervious to evidentiary standards. Irrespective of all of the evidence in support of what actually happened on 9/11, and despite any evidence in support of the endless conspiracy storylines (many of which are contradictory with one another), the conspiracists hold on to their firm beliefs. Even when a given conspiratorial statement (e.g., "jet fuel cannot weaken iron") is refuted via a controlled scientific experiment, the evidence is dismissed as suspect, irrelevant, or better yet, the experimenters are apparently in on the conspiracy! 

2) Both religion and grand conspiracies ascribe great power to "invisible" forces. In the case of the 9/11 conspiracies, these shadowy puppet masters are one of several possible groups including the New World Order, the American government/military complex, the Illuminati, the Jews, the Zionists, George Bush (who is apparently controlled by an evil group of neo-cons), oil companies, and real estate moguls (many of whom are Jewish).
(3) These "invisible" forces appear to be as omnipotent as are Gods in the various religious traditions. For example, it has been estimated that the most basic version of the various strands of 9/11 conspiracies would require a level of unimaginable coordination between at the very least several thousand people. Incredibly, not a single individual within the conspiracy has ever broken silence. Such is the power of the conspirators.
Extreme stupidity is legal however I dare say that in this case it is immoral. As I write these words, close to 3,000 people were about to lose their lives exactly eight years ago. By espousing such virulent nonsense, the conspiracists attack the historical truths behind this horrifying event, and in so doing dishonor the memories of all those who perished on that fateful morning.

Search for a mental health professional near you.


----------



## EnkiGrower (Dec 20, 2009)

I don't know where to start, or if it is even worth it. How did the 9/11 thread turn into religion?!?

Doesn't matter who did it, some people conspired to take those buildings down. To Laugh that people think there is a conspiracy behind it, well is just dumb. To not question what happened makes you a sheep, and no cognitive debate could be had.

Its like debating God's existence by using the Big Bang...such a stretch to think there is Divinity behind such a random event....

All I am saying is we aren't being told everything, there is no question to that. Who benefits the most from this event..certainly wasn't the Taliban or Sadam "I bought the WMD from U.S" Hussien. It is frightening to me that people don't care enough to think about the lies that are told, and think those of us that do are crazy.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 20, 2009)

Again, you have nothing.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 20, 2009)

Hahaha, a typical psychotic response. Ur right at home here.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 20, 2009)

welcome to mind in a box can i take your order?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 20, 2009)

they debunked global warming. 





waiting, .....................................................................................


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 20, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> they debunked global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Give them time ... there's a conspiracy in there somewhere. The video editing is humming right now.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 20, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Give them time ... there's a conspiracy in there somewhere. The video editing is humming right now.


what exactly are you talking about?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 20, 2009)

I'm talking about the next conspiracy ... they're always right around the corner.

Everything is planned. 

Everything is controlled by secret groups. 

The world is one big black op.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 20, 2009)

the global warming movement was already hijacked long ago, and, thanks to copenhagen, its already been used to establish the nucleus of what will grow into the government of the world


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

Yes, the ultra secret cabals are in full control. 

Luckily we have folks like U all to show us the way through the murky secret world of mass coordinated conspiracies. This must make all of you look incredibly smart to ur friends...


----------



## JimmyPot (Dec 21, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> U mean Obama and the dem controlled congress right? Since it is within their power right now (like never before) to decrim weed. And they won't even talk about it.
> 
> I don't pray, I pay attention and plan. I'm not getting caught short in the future when the taxes and suffocation of the private sector take hold.
> 
> ...


Im off the grid and a outlaw.Im ready to take over as the new leader when the shit goes down ha ha.The decrim of weed is happening now and the best way to do it is slow so there is less Bull to put up with from the right.If the right was really hip to what is going on not just in Cali but Or. and Co.they would be freaking out.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

Decrim?  where's that happening? I see some small movement in MMj with states, but that can be rolled back anytime by the FEDS at their choosing. The next admin can wipe out any gains the states make in a week.

If Obama and the fully controlled Dem's don't decrim weed ... who will? Ur being sold out and don't even know it....  They got ur vote and don't need you anymore.... 

if not now ... when? The time is right now for fed decrim, and yet .... nothing ... not even a whisper of it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 21, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, delusion is popular these days.
> 
> You know something special no one else can see ...


You and those like you are the only ones that are delusional ... we all know when you deniers refer to "no one" you are talking about yourselves ... which is of no consequence ... hummm so where is that $1000 prize I'm sure would be easy for you to get ... since we are so delusional it would be a simple matter for you to win it. So where is the $1000? Let's see the check. Of course we won't see it ... all you and your kind are good for is  and nothing more. Bwaa ha ha ha!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

Sure, ur right. of course, how can you be wrong. u've figured out the global conspiracy!!! 

Like a rocket science U R!!! You have "special" knowledge i don't.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 21, 2009)

so there are NO terrorists?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

No, those terroroists were really cleverly made paper mache dolls handcrafted by Rumsfield and Cheney, under the Pentagon in a secret dungeon. 

I saw it on U tube....


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 21, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Sure, ur right. of course, how can you be wrong. u've figured out the global conspiracy!!!
> 
> Like a rocket science U R!!! You have "special" knowledge i don't.


So where's the check at bright boy? How come you don't post it? Could it be you can't? Because all this time you have been doing nothing but  don't worry we already knew you are full of shit. Bwaa ha ha ha!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

If ur going to pull posts out from 100 pages ago .. post them up. I'm not obsessed like U.

Ur good at C/P'ing. Or do U get ur info from the bat phone?


----------



## Keenly (Dec 21, 2009)

the biggest terrorists in the entire world are the corrupt individuals inside the federal government


using fear to control an entire nation...

lying to them, stealing from them, extorting them


----------



## Bon3z (Dec 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> the biggest terrorists in the entire world are the corrupt individuals inside the federal government
> 
> 
> using fear to control an entire nation...
> ...



ditto...............


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> the biggest terrorists in the entire world are the corrupt individuals inside the federal government
> 
> 
> using fear to control an entire nation...
> ...


why are you allowing yourself to be controlled by fear? 

and if you aren't, who is? i know i'm not.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

Me either. It's the feeling of personal helplessness which leads to conspiracy thinking. It's becoming well documented in the Psychology world,and the findings are disturbing. there is a point of no return where the negativity and fear accelerate the social outcasting, perpetuating MORE conspiracy thinking. They prove themselves correct with their own psychosis. 
GrowRebel is already there, by my readings. Once you go too far down the rabbit hole, you can't back out. There's no way out.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 21, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> why are you allowing yourself to be controlled by fear?
> 
> and if you aren't, who is? i know i'm not.



here is an example


the income tax

most of us pay it

an increasing amount of us are recognizing the income tax does not apply to your wages and your labor for most americans, yet we are forced to pay it anyway

even though there is no law that says we are legally obligated to pay this tax, we must, because if we dont, we can experience repossession, liquidation, prison time

thats using fear to extort right there


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Dec 21, 2009)

But why are you letting the fear of all that control you?

That is his question.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 21, 2009)

fear doesnt control me, the government does


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Dec 21, 2009)

O.....k.....


----------



## Keenly (Dec 21, 2009)

your name suits your stance on this


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> here is an example
> 
> 
> the income tax
> ...



so it's YOU who is scared?


poor thing, wanna hug?


----------



## kronic1989 (Dec 21, 2009)

Pay your taxes with money you stole from the gubbermints. Its feel great.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

Keenly said:


> here is an example
> 
> 
> the income tax
> ...


well that certainly explains the conspiracy psychosis.....  

If I pick an apple, then it's also an orange. They both come from fruit trees....

Razor sharp.....


----------



## Keenly (Dec 21, 2009)




----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 21, 2009)




----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 21, 2009)

He doesn't even recognize the disconnect. level 3.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> He doesn't even recognize the disconnect. level 3.


Nor do we recognize the $1000 check proving us wrong ... gee it's only been four years ...you think you'd come up with something by now. But we all know why you don't have the $1000 check ... no explanation needed ... you got NOTHING. Bwaa ha ha ha!


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 22, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Nor do we recognize the $1000 check proving us wrong ... gee it's only been four years ...you think you'd come up with something by now. But we all know why you don't have the $1000 check ... no explanation needed ... you got NOTHING. Bwaa ha ha ha!


so a check will prove it was an inside job? 

i don't get this whole check thing. sounds like something private. maybe you 2 can get a room. 



keenly was talking about how he fears the government. we were discussing that. you are just blah, blahing. do you have anything of substance to add to your own thread?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 22, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


>







we left off right here.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 22, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> so a check will prove it was an inside job?
> 
> i don't get this whole check thing. sounds like something private. maybe you 2 can get a room.
> 
> ...


If you'd bother to look at the video that was posted on page 252 #2520 you'd know. But we all know you are not the least bit interested in learning the truth you simply want to disrupt ... do you have something of substance to add to my thread. I didn't think so ... 

Now on to the 911 news ...

We Are Change: Truth behind 9/11, New World Order & the Fed

More from the patriots of WAC Chicago.

The Anthrax Attacks
The Government has admitted the 2001 Anthrax Letters were a false-flag attack originating from within the US military bio-weapons program
The anthrax terror did as much, or even more, than the 911 travesty to turn the American public against the Arab world. It is interesting to observe that many persons who are willing to admit that evidence of the anthrax attacks proves they were an "inside job" protest indignantly against well documented conclusions for 911 having been similarly planned.


*Hijackers of 911-How It Might Have Gone Down*

by Stewart Ogilby
A plot developed among a group of Muslims, possibly as far back as 1994. These were followers of Osama bin Laden, young Arab men intent upon preserving and restoring fundamenalist Islamic society throughout the Arab world by any means necessary. We will call this initial group "plotters".
The plotters viewed leading Saudis as hypocritical, especially with regard to their relationship with the US, the latter viewed as arch enemy of Islam by virtue of Western life-styles and support of Israel.


Happy Holidays!


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 22, 2009)

yes, i do. i was trying to tell keenly that he doesn't have to fear the govenrment. if you weren't so far out there you'd see that. i even refreshed for you. nope, your stuck back on page what? 

here and now, my friend. 


you with us?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 22, 2009)

"how it might have"


i'm supposed to click that? 

*chuckles

at least you stfu about "the check".


----------



## mexiblunt (Dec 22, 2009)

If someone here gets the $1000 I'll match it!


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 22, 2009)

i went back and saw your link.

that's it? 

grab what you can grab, i guess.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 22, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> If someone here gets the $1000 I'll match it!


You won't have to worry about that! They don't have a chance of winning that check ... all they wish to do is disrupt ... they can't stand the fact that most people don't buy the government's bullshit.

Here another video ... 
FORMER FBI CHIEF SAYS 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
This is Ted Gunderson giving some excellent information about the false flag attack that took place on 911. He states the CIA makes the mafia look like a Sunday school meeting. Also that the high levels of government had to know about 911. Check it out ... runs 8 minutes.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 22, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> If someone here gets the $1000 I'll match it!


Maybe if a few more make the same offer...it will make it worth the omnipotent weed barons time to offer something constructive to the discussion besides BS psychology...here take your experimental pills...they will make you feel better...you have some crazy chemical imbalance in you brain that I can see by talking to you...and magically the same pill that is advertised all over my office (clock, clipboard, pen and notepad at the least) is just the magical cure for life...and if it stops working so well...just come back and I will double your dose for you...addicting...don't worry about that...this is medicine...it is good for you...(soft soothing musak in the background)


----------



## mexiblunt (Dec 22, 2009)

I'd rather not get personnel. I really don't care much about money as long as a have what I need. There is an official story about those events that some believe and some don't. I'm on the fence. But the fence is broken and leaning. I try hard everyday to focus on things I believe in and support instead of dwelling on the things I don't, is that logical?


----------



## Keenly (Dec 22, 2009)

dont have to be afraid of the government 



ahaha


FDD doesnt know his history very well... or at all actually...

keep sticking your head in the sand, dont worry if things dont add up

every morning the sheep come to the farmer for food and water

they would never suspect he would harm them. he takes care of them


one day that same farmer comes out in the morning and starts cutting throats...


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 22, 2009)

I have cows. They're fed everyday. They are beautiful animals... but they taste better! mmm mmm mmm. 

(not sure where i was going with that. Think i'm just hungry)


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 22, 2009)

Keenly said:


> dont have to be afraid of the government
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so hide little lamb. 
calling me names makes your point no more valid. it just makes you look immature and frustrated. 



i live my life just like you do, except without fear. pretty simple. it changes nothing. we both live the exact same way, only you do it in fear. lol


ask me when the last time i filed was.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 23, 2009)

If you fear this government, you must be crying in bed every night about the rest of the world...... Ur in the best country on earth folks. Some of you need to get out more and look around.

They want what we have, if not, they want us destroyed. A beacon of light is an enemy to a country which lives in the shadows, and they are many. We are one, but we shine a very big light.


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 24, 2009)

Now that the fumes from the non contributing babbling has calm down we can get back to the issue at hand ...

4409 -- Merry Christmas Neo-Cons!
[youtube]9d7YgOM-fug&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 24, 2009)

i'm soooo scared. help me please. :wankoff:


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 24, 2009)

Everything is controlled by super secret organizations and cabals......


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 24, 2009)

i'm just pleased to find out there are no real terrorists.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 25, 2009)

Yep, the code reveals it was all Bush. 

Isn't that the whole point of this drivel? To deflect away from the true culprits and score political points. 

Uhhh, the election is over and so is the attention to this trick.

Only the naive are left to keep twisting in the wind.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 25, 2009)

merry christmas all. 




[youtube]yw5jne5BN-I[/youtube]


----------



## Keenly (Dec 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yep, the code reveals it was all Bush.
> 
> Isn't that the whole point of this drivel? To deflect away from the true culprits and score political points.
> 
> ...



what the fuck are you talking about?

so a real investigation into the murder of americans i guess is just politics


thats right cracker, we have a political agenda by wanting to find out who actually did this, not who they point the finger at

what a fucking ridiculous thing to say


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 26, 2009)

See ... you aren't even aware of the endgame on 9/11 truthers scheme. yes, it is ENTIRELY political.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 26, 2009)

Keenly said:


> what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> so a real investigation into the murder of americans i guess is just politics
> 
> ...




as he posts in a thread in the POLITICS section.


----------



## Wavels (Dec 26, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm just pleased to find out there are no real terrorists.


LOL
Therein lies the heart of this matter.
It is ONLY ourselves we need to worry about.

Cheney put that looney on the Northwest flight 253 yesterday.
See it is sooo simple!


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 26, 2009)

Wavels said:


> LOL
> Therein lies the heart of this matter.
> It is ONLY ourselves we need to worry about.
> 
> ...



i started a thread about that yesterday. i didn't get too many replies. i blamed it on Bush.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 26, 2009)

Bush is controlling Obama right now. 

Bush is behind the health care takeover, the bank bailouts and getting dogs pregnant everywhere.


----------



## Wavels (Dec 26, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i started a thread about that yesterday. i didn't get too many replies. i blamed it on Bush.


 



CrackerJax said:


> Bush is controlling Obama right now.
> 
> Bush is behind the health care takeover, the bank bailouts and getting dogs pregnant everywhere.


 
I think Cheney is the dastardly mastermind and Bush is the one doing the dogs...
I don't know whether to laugh , cry or eat a banana!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 26, 2009)

Wavels said:


> I think Cheney is the dastardly mastermind and Bush is the one doing the dogs...
> I don't know whether to laugh , cry or eat a banana!



I will utilize my newly acquired 9/11 Truther logic that's been on constant display here..... 


Cheney in charge? *HA!!* (see how effective that was? I've already won!!) 

That's the GENIUS of Bush. He ACTS like he's a dummy and Cheney is the mastermind. That's what THEY WANT you to think!!!! 

BUSH is the super evil genius but let's CHENEY get the credit. It a double reverse and is not disprovable by you or anyone else!!!!


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 26, 2009)

Yawn ... I see the disinfo agents/deniers are still trying to side track the issue ... how's that working out for ya? Looks like to me people STILL want a real investigation into 911 ... aww ... must be very frustrating for you ... that why you continue to post nothing that contributes to the thread ... you can't dispute the science so you continue to try and mock us hoping to get people to stop wanting the truth. How's that working out for you?

Now back to the real issue ...
(First) Billboard Complete: On Arizona's I-40










There is way more of us patriots than there are obedient deniers/disinfo agents ... better get use to that FACT.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 26, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> Yawn ... I see the disinfo agents/deniers are still trying to side track the issue ... how's that working out for ya? Looks like to me people STILL want a real investigation into 911 ... aww ... must be very frustrating for you ... that why you continue to post nothing that contributes to the thread ... you can't dispute the science so you continue to try and mock us hoping to get people to stop wanting the truth. How's that working out for you?
> 
> Now back to the real issue ...
> (First) Billboard Complete: On Arizona's I-40
> ...



you completely ignored the point. 

perfect.


----------



## Wavels (Dec 26, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> There is way more of us patriots than there are obedient deniers/disinfo agents ... better get use to that FACT.





If this were even remotely true, do you not think that we would have have had additional genuine investigations by now???


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 26, 2009)

I'd say there are far more ppl who believe in UFO visitation ....

How's that going?


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 26, 2009)

Wavels said:


> [/COLOR]
> If this were even remotely true, do you not think that we would have have had additional genuine investigations by now???


Now how on earth can you come to that conclusion when the people behind 911 control the DOJ and all the high branches of government. You really think they are going to allow a real investigation that will prove they are behind 911?


So of course they are going to do all they can to prevent a real investigation. Why should a few powerful elite be held accountable for the death of a couple million commoners.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 26, 2009)




----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 27, 2009)

If this guy has figured it out, I am starting to feel out of touch. 

Clearly he is a super genius....... and has figured out the deceptions of a top secret operation. 

[youtube]UjMeMU-DInA[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 27, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> If this guy has figured it out, I am starting to feel out of touch.
> 
> Clearly he is a super genius....... and has figured out the deceptions of a top secret operation.
> 
> [youtube]UjMeMU-DInA[/youtube]


he sounds canadian.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 27, 2009)

[youtube]3u-dGvTpwSI[/youtube]


pay no attention to the man behind the barbed curtain


just stick your head in the sand


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 27, 2009)

Keenly said:


> [youtube]3u-dGvTpwSI[/youtube]
> 
> 
> pay no attention to the man behind the barbed curtain
> ...


you need to pull yours out and realize there are people in this world who would rather see America DEAD.

how do you not comprehend that?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 27, 2009)

[youtube]92myDzAFgU4[/youtube]


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 27, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> [youtube]92myDzAFgU4[/youtube]


We wouldn't have to worry about dead chants if the elite in government would stop trying to steal their resources, and killing their children.
If you think it's because "they hate our freedom" then you really got your head in the sand.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 27, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> We wouldn't have to worry about dead chants if the elite in government would stop trying to steal their resources, and killing their children.
> *If you think it's because "they hate our freedom" *then you really got your head in the sand.



where did i say that? 

you all just make shit up, throw it out there, and call it fact. 




at least you admit that there _are_ foreign terrorists.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 27, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you need to pull yours out and realize there are people in this world who would rather see America DEAD.
> 
> how do you not comprehend that?


This is true. But this fact does not make another fact true necessarily.

Now of course GWB did not shoot missiles at the WTC from his Air National Guard F4 and hop into his teleporter to go learn to read with the other kids...This is as ridiculous as proving that the official story is legit by posting a video from youtube of a guy who does not fit the image we accept as one who feeds us our daily fodder.

The point is that even some of the members of the 9/11 commission say there are issues with the official story.

This is not an Obama for president issue, nor is it a Sarah Palin for VP issue...I am sure for some it is, and others would like to think that it is.

I know this is the best country on Earth, and I have ZERO desire to go anywhere else.

Being that this is the greatest country in the world, does NOT mean that elements of the Gov. are always straight with the public, or congress for that matter...it is by their very nature that they are secretive, and of course this is often for the welfare of the Nation.

I think most people would agree that the Air Force has not released all info regarding UFO's. Also, most people think that there is something, at least a little fishy, about the Kennedy Assassination.

Iran Contra....Does anyone really think that there was not some funky sh!t going on here?

OK City...confirmed reports of 2 other larger bombs in building with video of the bomb squad removing them! Boxes removed with priority over recovering survivors...I watched this all live...Chicken Sh!t bomb...BullSh!T!!!

People coming in this thread and acting like playground bullies is very much like going into the religion threads and bashing their idols...which seems to be frowned upon, and probably rightly so.

Although the Michael Ruppert video is long and extremely boring for most of it, rather than posting videos of people who look crazy, disprove ONE source from the movie and score $1000...and he actually talks very little about 9/11...most is background leading up to the event...some good stuff on the CIA and Pakistan and the Drug trade.

I understand the mentality that makes bullies pick on people who they see as different, as well as the mob mentality that goes along with it..I also understand the attention span of the public is between 30 minutes and 3 hours, but I do not understand how seemingly rational people can except irrational explanations while at the same time be so vehemently against real honest truth.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 27, 2009)

the problem is that the people DEMANDING an investigation already know the answers that THEY want to hear. if they don't get these EXACT answers they will just keep going on and on. they don't want an investigation to "find out" they want one to "prove themselves right". i see this as a HUGE difference. 

that is my argument.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 27, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> the problem is that the people DEMANDING an investigation already know the answers that THEY want to hear. if they don't get these EXACT answers they will just keep going on and on. they don't want an investigation to "find out" they want one to "prove themselves right". i see this as a HUGE difference.
> 
> that is my argument.


Unfortunately you are right, for some "truthers".

I do not know what REALLY happened, nor do I think we will ever know.

I have come to this after the election...which I see now more than ever as a "dog and pony show" and nothing else. Anything that our government is doing that is on the nightly news, is undoubtedly a smoke screen for something else or a diversion from the real issues.

Just for some perspective...If a foreign government occupied my country...I would go to Arkansas to train as a foreign fighter...and go blow some sh!t up...without attaching the bomb to my chest!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 27, 2009)

GR is one of the most misinformed ppl on these forums ... and that's saying something.

he thinks he's a guru ... a common pattern among the delusional and those EASILY fooled.


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Dec 27, 2009)

Basically, the smart people right at the top of the food chain are doing the equivalent of playing something like Age of Empires, but with real people, in the real world.

Your country and every other British colony, recognised as such or not, is basically a commercial enterprise. Your country is a business, started by the English Crown hundereds of years ago. Your country is an investment.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 27, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> the problem is that the people DEMANDING an investigation already know the answers that THEY want to hear. if they don't get these EXACT answers they will just keep going on and on. they don't want an investigation to "find out" they want one to "prove themselves right". i see this as a HUGE difference.
> 
> that is my argument.





Hayduke said:


> Unfortunately you are right, for some "truthers".
> 
> I do not know what REALLY happened, nor do I think we will ever know.
> 
> ...


Agree, hayduke. I have know idea who was behind it... but i do know the shit doesn't add up. Like i said previously... if someone believe bush or cheney pushed a red button to take down the buildings... they're an idiot and ruin the "movement" for the rest of us.

A few bad apples ruin the batch


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 27, 2009)

But that was the main purpose of the 9/11 conspiracy. You have tried to morph it into something else, but your just late for dinner. You missed the main course, and it was 100% political, not scientific at all.


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> the problem is that the people DEMANDING an investigation already know the answers that THEY want to hear. if they don't get these EXACT answers they will just keep going on and on. they don't want an investigation to "find out" they want one to "prove themselves right". i see this as a HUGE difference.
> 
> that is my argument.


Where are all these crazy truthers? 
If you claim this as your "argument" , then it is a waste of time in this thread.
I dont see one person on this thread that matches that description. We all agree , including yourself, that we do NOT know exactly what happened that day. I do not see anyone claiming to know what happened that day, just a bunch of folks who would like a real investigation, w/plenty of probable cause.
and IF that investigation leads to all of us being wrong then so be it. and of course i would get a lil choked up if a real investigation led to the same results, just like cj (not to sure about u fdd) would lose his mind if he found out anything different from what he already thinks. I would not continue to tell folks what i tell them now, i would sit down and shut the fuck up just like any other real jackass in this situation. and i certainly would not pull a "i told u so" , cause thats just not right.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL !!


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 28, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> We wouldn't have to worry about dead chants if the elite in government would stop trying to steal their resources, and killing their children.


Yes i agree 100%.
They hate the US because they will not leave them alone. You guys have this wild imagination about foreign people. They are not much different from you and me.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> Where are all these crazy truthers?
> If you claim this as your "argument" , then it is a waste of time in this thread.
> I dont see one person on this thread that matches that description. We all agree , including yourself, that we do NOT know exactly what happened that day. I do not see anyone claiming to know what happened that day, just a bunch of folks who would like a real investigation, w/plenty of probable cause.
> and IF that investigation leads to all of *us being wrong* then so be it. and of course i would get a lil choked up if a real investigation led to the same results, just like cj (not to sure about u fdd) would lose his mind if he found out anything different from what he already thinks. I would not continue to tell folks what i tell them now, i would sit down and shut the fuck up just like any other real jackass in this situation. and i certainly would not pull a "i told u so" , cause thats just not right.
> ...



wrong about knowing what happened? 
or wrong about not knowing what happened?

you contradict yourself.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> Yes i agree 100%.
> They hate the US because they will not leave them alone. You guys have this wild imagination about foreign people. They are not much different from you and me.


yeah, i imagined it all, ....


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I've already dismantled practically every part of the truthers hogwash.
> 
> You have somehow overlooked it all ... I'm shocked.


I'm shocked you would even make such a claim. 



CrackerJax said:


> And it's not bashing.... U guys are doing the bashing. UR entire nutty diatribe is bashing.
> Let me clue you in to what Psychologists are saying about folks like you....


Talk much? and this is the reason its very hard to not just let the feelings do the talkin for me, but ....yet i still keep my cool while discussing with you.
You bash yourself just as i do sometimes. it happens...


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> wrong about knowing what happened?
> or wrong about not knowing what happened?
> 
> you contradict yourself.


it happens to the best of us. (well i am defiantly not the best at "debating" , but i try )
......and this post is what makes me "not so sure about u fdd"
i mean i know ur sain and not "nuttz" like cj calls me.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

i'm neutral. i see both sides and pop in to point out all the flaws and embarrassments. it's like going to the bar and drinking soda pop all night. i get to observe all the drunks without ever getting a hangover.


carry-on.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 28, 2009)

lol CJ completely gave up on debate on resorts to hampering our psychological status


im sure i can find something some where that says if you stay on internet forums for too long you have a psychological problem


plenty of quacks out there


----------



## Keenly (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm neutral. i see both sides and pop in to point out all the flaws and embarrassments. it's like going to the bar and drinking soda pop all night. i get to observe all the drunks without ever getting a hangover.
> 
> 
> carry-on.



if you are a neutral, lets here a comment on one topic and one topic only

the inflammable passport, what say you on the subject?


----------



## medicineman (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm neutral. i see both sides and pop in to point out all the flaws and embarrassments. it's like going to the bar and drinking soda pop all night. i get to observe all the drunks without ever getting a hangover.
> 
> 
> carry-on.


* I could never stand the drunks after I quit drinking. I could see myself in there and it werent pretty.*


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

Keenly said:


> if you are a neutral, lets here a comment on one topic and one topic only
> 
> the inflammable passport, what say you on the subject?


haven't reviewed the evidence enough and i am not trained in forensic science either. i know MY knowledge and i don't claim to know things that i don't have the ability to know. 

you can't take one piece of a puzzle, tell me it's part of the fenceline and then call it done. you have to put all the pieces together to see it is a field of clover. 

you won't understand any of this. but i still love you for your vigor. you'd make a good solider. 


why is it always expected of someone to take "sides"? if i don't agree with EVERY point you make then i become "one of them" to you. how silly is that?


----------



## Keenly (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> haven't reviewed the evidence enough and i am not trained in forensic science either. i know MY knowledge and i don't claim to know things that i don't have the ability to know.
> 
> you can't take one piece of a puzzle, tell me it's part of the fenceline and then call it done. you have to put all the pieces together to see it is a field of clover.
> 
> ...



you dont have to take a side your allowed to be indecisive 

i just want to know, what you personally think of them claiming to not be able to find the black boxes, but some how when the plane hit the north tower, and this huge fireball comes pouring out

his passport manages to fly out of his pocket through the plane through the building through the fire and they pick it up and say IT WAS HIM!!!


that doesnt seem kind of ... strange to you?

black box - destroyed? (made of virtually invincible materials)

pass port - leather and paper, unscathed


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Even when a given conspiratorial statement (e.g., "jet fuel cannot weaken iron") is refuted via a controlled scientific experiment, the evidence is dismissed as suspect, irrelevant, or better yet, the experimenters are apparently in on the conspiracy!


you are SO set on proving we are crazy, you seem to have forgotten how crazy you make yourself look.
Everytime real, or good evidence is brought up, you go back to the "jet fuel cannot weaken steel/iron.._*leave a few words out*_" bullshit.
Yes FIRE and JET FUEL CAN weaken steel and iron. i think that is common sense but u forgot we had that.

C,mon lets see your "controlled scientific experiment" ..........................?


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm neutral. i see both sides and pop in to point out all the flaws and embarrassments. it's like going to the bar and drinking soda pop all night. i get to observe all the drunks without ever getting a hangover.
> 
> 
> carry-on.



This is kinda what i like about u.
I know u "care" but u can take a shitty situation and make me laugh sometimes.(even if it is at myself)
i think fdd makes fun of *us* not 911, and i can deal with that


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> so a check will prove it was an inside job?
> 
> i don't get this whole check thing. sounds like something private. maybe you 2 can get a room.
> 
> ...



now that i see from your view, i am on the floor. 
no but for real, i think CJ (you dont miss ANYTHING fdd) missed the check post a 100 pages back. well its only 4 or 5 pages back, but he would not know that.
in the same clip, the ex-pig says "america dont read" 
He was right!


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

Keenly said:


> you dont have to take a side your allowed to be indecisive
> 
> i just want to know, what you personally think of them claiming to not be able to find the black boxes, but some how when the plane hit the north tower, and this huge fireball comes pouring out
> 
> ...





i will say it again, "i am NOT a forensic scientist". i can NOT make a logical conclusion based on the minimal facts you have given me or my ability to analyze them.

told you you wouldn't get it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

if you throw a solid watermelon against the wall is EXPLODES into tiny pieces.

if you throw a piece of paper against the wall it flutters away. 

check your logic at the door please.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

[youtube]ekvQ3ZIzOpc[/youtube]


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> if you throw a solid watermelon against the wall is EXPLODES into tiny pieces.
> 
> if you throw a piece of paper against the wall it flutters away.
> 
> check your logic at the door please.


You may retain your logic...it is merely physics.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> You may retain your logic...it is merely physics.


oops, my error.

you are correct. i am wrong. it _is_ physics.






see how easy that was?


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 28, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> oops, my error.
> 
> you are correct. i am wrong. it _is_ physics.
> 
> ...


But if you throw the piece of paper, tucked into the pocket of the watermelon, slam it at 500mph into a a building with a huge explosion of jet fuel...it is not likely to "flutter away"...the physics still apply.

Maybe the guy rolled down the cockpit window (you know...to shout "Allah Akbar" at the infidels on the streets below) and in one final act of defiance before going to meet his maker (and his dates) he flung his passport out the cockpit window and shouted...Litter to America!...you filthy pigs!...Of course we would be able to verify the actual dialogue if only the flight recorder(s) did not fully sublime


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 28, 2009)

Keenly said:


> lol CJ completely gave up on debate on resorts to hampering our psychological status
> 
> 
> im sure i can find something some where that says if you stay on internet forums for too long you have a psychological problem
> ...


I know you must be the type that needs to be beat over the head countless times until anything sinks in, but ur right, i'm not up to that task. I don't care enough about you. The science of Psychology is in pretty much complete agreement about conspiracy psychosis. 

But don't let that bother you ... it's part of the psychosis.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The science of Psychology


Psychology is NOT science! It is as much science as Voodoo and palm reading


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

poof!!! gone.




[youtube]3fVgLuTV2kU[/youtube]





chew on that.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

did ya see the squibs? 



[youtube]Qnuu_b4RNrw&NR[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 28, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Psychology is NOT science! It is as much science as Voodoo and palm reading


Since psychology has been accepted in the legal system and in court, as opposed to voodoo and palm reading ... you are in error. Dismiss them all you wish ... again ... part of the psychosis. 

It's not them ... it's you.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 28, 2009)

the legal system is fucked up. quit supporting the system that would lock your ass up for growing and toking


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 28, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Since psychology has been accepted in the legal system and in court, as opposed to voodoo and palm reading ... you are in error. Dismiss them all you wish ... again ... part of the psychosis.
> 
> It's not them ... it's you.


Do you have an instinctual fear of herding dogs?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

jessie ventura just told me that the black boxes were recovered and the government is HIDING them. 

wtf is really going on?


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

considering the black boxes have always, in every single recorded FAA plane crash, have always been found, you tell me


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

Keenly said:


> considering the black boxes have always, in every single recorded FAA plane crash, have always been found, you tell me






maybe if they would have just let him go into the "secret warehouse" we'd all know.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

maybe if most of the steel wasnt shipped overseas to be recycled we could examine it for explosive residue


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

Keenly said:


> maybe if most of the steel wasnt shipped overseas to be recycled we could examine it for explosive residue


jesse says the black boxes hold all the answers and the government has them. he tried to get them, but they said "no".


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 29, 2009)

This is the best short bus ride ever.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Dec 29, 2009)

Your one liners don't help your argument for the government's conspiracy theory.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 29, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Your one liners don't help your argument for the government's conspiracy theory.


It's part of the psychosis.


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> This is the best short bus ride ever.


still goin huh? There has to be somethin in your psycho class about talkin to people the way you do?
My guess is I got way less education then you (in school) yet your head is in your arse SO far that you force yourself to look stupid. 
sorry i had to stoop to your level. (3 or 4?) 
and sorry i had to waste a whole post on this.
Can u please stick to the issue cj?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

jesse says the planes should have been shot down before they ever got near a building.


what would have happened if they would have shot the planes down?

think about the headlines. 

*100's of civilians give their lives for freedom*-
-news at 11


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> jesse says the planes should have been shot down before they ever got near a building.
> 
> 
> what would have happened if they would have shot the planes down?
> ...


Hayduke says at least fighters should have been scrambled, and has trouble understanding why they were not.

3,000 give their lives for geopolitical strategy
-entertainment at 11


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Blah blah blah ... No One designed those buildings to be hit by large jumbo jets at 500 M.P.H.


I think i'll believe the designer over you.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

Hayduke said:


> Hayduke says at least fighters should have been scrambled, and has trouble understanding why they were not.
> 
> 3,000 give their lives for geopolitical strategy
> -entertainment at 11



just to ride alongside and watch? 

hayduke and jesse should have beers together.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> just to ride alongside and watch?
> 
> hayduke and jesse should have beers together.




so, "terrorists" "hijack" "4" (all in quotes because each one of these is just ridiculous)
commercial arliners and NORAD/NORTHCOM do nothing, for over an hour....


but it was those al CIA duh with them box cutters commin to get our freedom! gotta get those terrorists!!

you guys catch the police training video where they teach them the founding fathers were the countries first terrorists?

thats dangerous


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

Keenly said:


> so, "terrorists" "hijack" "4" (all in quotes because each one of these is just ridiculous)
> commercial arliners and NORAD/NORTHCOM do nothing, for over an hour....
> 
> 
> ...



you aren't honestly trying to suck me into an argument are you? do you never learn? that is NOT my game. please pay attention.

i am simply telling you what JESSE said.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you aren't honestly trying to suck me into an argument are you? do you never learn? that is NOT my game. please pay attention.
> 
> i am simply telling you what JESSE said.



some people just dont know there is a difference between argument and debate, argument involves emotions and i would ask you to please leave those beside your keyboard

then again you never really post your opinion on anything so how can i expect you to now?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

Keenly said:


> some people just dont know there is a difference between argument and debate, argument involves emotions and i would ask you to please leave those beside your keyboard
> 
> then again you never really post your opinion on anything so how can i expect you to now?


you aren't honestly trying to suck me into a "debate" are you? do you never learn? that is NOT my game. please pay attention.

i am simply telling you what JESSE said.


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> just to ride alongside and watch?
> 
> hayduke and jesse should have beers together.


At the very least yes.

Drinking and hanging out with Jessie are both potentially bad for your health


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> you aren't honestly trying to suck me into a "debate" are you? do you never learn? that is NOT my game. please pay attention.
> 
> i am simply telling you what JESSE said.


i have seen what jesse said thanks, and my opinion was formed long before this show existed

the 9/11 episode of conspiracy theory was weaksauce, and did not really show all the ridiculous things that happened that day, they seemed to just interview a bunch of people, and thats no good

and why are you hesitant to get into political debate?


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i have seen what jesse said thanks, and my opinion was formed long before this show existed
> 
> the 9/11 episode of conspiracy theory was weaksauce, and did not really show all the ridiculous things that happened that day, they seemed to just interview a bunch of people, and thats no good
> 
> and why are you hesitant to get into political debate?


i have self respect.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 29, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> I think i'll believe the designer over you.


Since my dad ran the entire electrical end of that building, i think i'll go with him over you. 

Post your proof that the buildings WERE designed for 767's at 500mph loaded with jet fuel.... show us all.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

i think your just shy, self respect has nothing to do with debate, especially on the interweb


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 29, 2009)

Keenly said:


> i think your just shy, self respect has nothing to do with debate, especially on the interweb


you are entitled to your own opinion.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm just a bit more logical than you. I don't put my politics first.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm just a bit more logical than you. I don't put my politics first.



ok Mr logic, AE911truth


why do architects and engineers scream controlled demolition?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 29, 2009)

Because it gives them exposure.... nuts come in all forms.


----------



## Keenly (Dec 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Because it gives them exposure.... nuts come in all forms.


including ones on the internet 


your statement hardly contradicts the 9,000 PhD signatures


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 31, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Since my dad ran the entire electrical end of that building, i think i'll go with him over you.
> 
> Post your proof that the buildings WERE designed for 767's at 500mph loaded with jet fuel.... show us all.


Well being that your dad is in the same field as me then i know he only had access to regular blueprints. Now unless he personally talked to the head architects or engineers about planes flying into the buildings , then my obvious guess would be , that he has no idea what them buildings were designed to withstand? 

"
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. 
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. [SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE] 
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. 
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707&#8212;DC) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. [SIZE=-1] 4 "

and John Skilling was not the only one, that is just the quickest thing i could find. somewhere in this thread there is a video where one of the designers talks about it, incase you dont feel like reading.
[/SIZE]


----------



## wyteboi (Dec 31, 2009)

oh and a 707 is 336,000 lbs. a 767= 395,000 lbs.
707=23,000 gallons of fuel , and a 767= 24,000 gallons of fuel.
cruise speed for 707= *607*mph. and a 767= 530mph.

So very little difference between the two, when it comes to hitting a building.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 31, 2009)

For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links: 
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet


----------



## GrowRebel (Dec 31, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet


It's already been proven that the NIST report is bogus along with the 911 report ... but leave it to a disinformation agent to use a bogus report to mislead.And let not forget that the infra-red photos proved the fire never got hot enough to damage the steel. And if their and you information is so accurate ... why no $1000 check to prove it? More prove you and NIST are full of shit.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 31, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> Well being that your dad is in the same field as me then i know he only had access to regular blueprints. Now unless he personally talked to the head architects or engineers about planes flying into the buildings , then my obvious guess would be , that he has no idea what them buildings were designed to withstand?
> 
> [SIZE=-1]
> [/SIZE]




yet you do.


----------



## Mindmelted (Dec 31, 2009)

We should turn that place into a giant crater


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 31, 2009)

GrowRebel said:


> It's already been proven that the NIST report is bogus along with the 911 report ... but leave it to a disinformation agent to use a bogus report to mislead.And let not forget that the infra-red photos proved the fire never got hot enough to damage the steel. And if their and you information is so accurate ... why no $1000 check to prove it? More prove you and NIST are full of shit.



yah, the most intensive investigation is wrong because it doesn't agree with you tube.

Ur a super genius....


----------



## Keenly (Dec 31, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> yah, the most intensive investigation is wrong because it doesn't agree with you tube.
> 
> Ur a super genius....


or maybe it was admitted by the people who came up with the report, from their own mouth, that there are falsifications?

your just going to ignore that though arent you


----------



## Hayduke (Dec 31, 2009)

wyteboi said:


> oh and a 707 is 336,000 lbs. a 767= 395,000 lbs.
> 707=23,000 gallons of fuel , and a 767= 24,000 gallons of fuel.
> cruise speed for 707= *607*mph. and a 767= 530mph.
> 
> So very little difference between the two, when it comes to hitting a building.


Nice.



fdd2blk said:


> yet you do.


Did he say he did?...no but he did quote the....wait for it.... head structural engineer for the World Trade Center

Now I know that he 'aint no Cracker Dad
 


wyteboi said:


> Well being that your dad is in the same field as me then i know he only had access to regular blueprints. Now unless he personally talked to the head architects or engineers about planes flying into the buildings , then my obvious guess would be , that he has no idea what them buildings were designed to withstand?
> 
> "
> John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
> ...


This was copied to keep the Wyteboi's statements in context...Although maybe he claims to know what happened...he did not in his post...But CJ's dad knows so...case closed.


When the Head structural engineer says this, it SHOULD at least raise some questions...this is but a single point of many.


----------



## fdd2blk (Dec 31, 2009)

well i guess that settles it.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 1, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:
> National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet


You ask for "proof" , i give you what i can find. You change the subject back to heat and nist. (what level is that?)
Did you even read this report from nist?
well what i learned from that whole report is that steel loses 50% of its strength under 648 degree C. 
I think nist forgot the other 99% of the info needed to conduct an investigation. I mean fuck, they are guessin an shit. Didnt you see the Head nist guy that said he was the most qualified on the team to do this investigation? He was NOT a scientist , nor a arcitect, and had less education then me, and then on top of that is the issue of money. They also admit that the *families *(who lost loved ones that day) had to "fight to overcome under funding and to extend *unreasonably *short deadlines"
(Rep. Mckinnney)
and what did that get them? Why were they not givin the time nor money to even try an acceptable investigation? 

If the Commision does not accept their own investigation , how do you? 

I just read this and it fits! 
99% of all people that really believe the official report have never read it.
(just a study , not a fact......yet)


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 1, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> yet you do.


well i would not even posted had i not known this much. it really is common knowledge that them buildings were designed to take a hit (and fuel) from a 707 , now that does not mean they could of actually took the hit from the 767 , im just sayin that they did think of that before starting construction. 
I do not know shit about designing buildings or what they can handle, but i do read.

Cj , if i point out all clintons fuck ups and how he links up to this mess, will you at least look at/read the evidence we present? You seem to be more interested in "how the dems are running your country" then the topic at hand? If so there are many other boards for you. try reb vs. dem in the google bar.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 1, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> yah, the most intensive investigation is wrong because


because the commission itself describes it as FAR from "intensive" or even close. They ran out of money and time , so how the fuck is that "intensive"? ...............schab at best. Its funny how you know so much more then your own government? (or the commission you stand by SO strongly)


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 1, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> because the commission itself describes it as FAR from "intensive" or even close. They ran out of money and time , so how the fuck is that "intensive"? ...............schab at best. Its funny how you know so much more then your own government? (or the commission you stand by SO strongly)


I believe at first they were going to give 3 million for an investigation, but the commission had to beg for 15 million. Still a joke. Like i've stated before, Clinton's dick sucking investigation cost more


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 1, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> You ask for "proof" , i give you what i can find. You change the subject back to heat and nist. (what level is that?)
> Did you even read this report from nist?
> well what i learned from that whole report is that steel loses 50% of its strength under 648 degree C.
> I think nist forgot the other 99% of the info needed to conduct an investigation. I mean fuck, they are guessin an shit. Didnt you see the Head nist guy that said he was the most qualified on the team to do this investigation? He was NOT a scientist , nor a arcitect, and had less education then me, and then on top of that is the issue of money. They also admit that the *families *(who lost loved ones that day) had to "fight to overcome under funding and to extend *unreasonably *short deadlines"
> ...


What the investigation concluded (correctly) was there was PLENTY enough heat to make the steel collapse, once the outer steel columns were compromised by the aircraft.

It also states correctly that the collapse started on the floors hit by the jets, not at ground level, where the "explosives" would have been.

But you keep on being delusional. You must have some circle of misguided friends. Get some better ones. You can rebuild your rep, it's possible.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 1, 2010)

just disregard eyewitnesses and people that were there / survived

the commission is all knowing and they got the whole event from every single persons eyes on tape


no big deal


----------



## RickWhite (Jan 1, 2010)

*FYI for the newcomers.*

My self and others have not only shot down every claim made in the thread, we have crushed them, destroyed them, massacred them, buried them in a shallow grave and took a bit steaming shit on them.

The only reason this thread is alive is because the newcomers don't go back and read the utter carnage my self and others have visited upon Grow Rebel, Keenly and the others. This so called "debate" was over long ago and is now a simple matter of a few idiots repeating the same old nonsense that we shoved up their ass pages ago. Do your self a favor and don't waste your time with these guys - even when you prove them wrong they will still insist they are right.

Watch as they respond to this post with the lie that I never disproved their claims even though several of us disproved every single one 100 times over.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 1, 2010)

RickWhite said:


> *FYI for the newcomers.*
> 
> My self and others have not only shot down every claim made in the thread, we have crushed them, destroyed them, massacred them, buried them in a shallow grave and took a bit steaming shit on them.
> 
> ...



what a fail post, it just goes to show you how when people know they are wrong, they resort to other measures to bash those that disagree

i dare any and all newcomers to go through what he is talking about

report back with your own opinion

this should be quite humorous 


be sure to include physics, as well as engineering into your thought process


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 1, 2010)

Keenly said:


> what a fail post, it just goes to show you how when people know they are wrong, they resort to other measures to bash those that disagree
> 
> i dare any and all newcomers to go through what he is talking about
> 
> ...



as well as men with dark glasses behind curtains.


----------



## medicineman (Jan 1, 2010)

*The sad thing is, we'll probably never know the truth. We still don't know for sure about the Kennedy assasination. The Warren report was a fixed up job if ever there were.*


----------



## tescu (Jan 1, 2010)

shit was an inside job!


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 1, 2010)

medicineman said:


> *The sad thing is, we'll probably never know the truth. We still don't know for sure about the Kennedy assasination. The Warren report was a fixed up job if ever there were.*


If a damn commie sniper miraculously shot JFK with an antique rifle from an opposite direction from where JFK was shot...why is our Gov, who would never lie for Geo-political gain, be still withholding information regarding this heinous act of damn commies trying to take away our freedoms because they hate our way of life?????

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!

Kennedy Assassination records scheduled for release in 2017

"In addition, according to Section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, all records in the Kennedy Collection will be opened by 2017 unless certified as justifiably closed by the President of the United States."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html#sealed

And again for those who actually know what happened...these are the people who accuse those who question the official report of KNOWING what happened when they are simply QUESTIONING the official story. By claiming to have disproved or "crushed" the very people who do not claim to KNOW but are again simply QUESTIONING...these folks ARE claiming to KNOW what happened...or I guess they are simply buying hook, line and sinker, the very report that the author's admit is inadequate...So why don't you disprove the maker of the film who is offering $1000 dollars?

I know that this is chump change to the weed barons, but why not? It would be at least entertaining...I am sure that they would not pay anyway, but then you could have more ammo other than the cheap ass incomplete 9/11 commission...Which was shorter and cheaper than the "Wham-Bam,Thank you Ma'am which almost got Clinton canned...but for real...our country has never been in more danger...than those few seconds that Bill's eyes were rolled back and his chubby little distraction dribbled on her dress


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 1, 2010)

The truth is, if you believe that conspiracist kooktard shit then you are a fucking moron. 

And if you really can't find anything suspicious about the official 9/11 findings then you're a complete fuckwit.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 2, 2010)

Miss MeanWeed said:


> The truth is, if you believe that conspiracist kooktard shit then you are a fucking moron.
> 
> And if you really can't find anything suspicious about the official 9/11 findings then you're a complete fuckwit.



your statement not only contradicts itself, but it confuses the shit out of me


----------



## Keenly (Jan 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> as well as men with dark glasses behind curtains.


dark glasses? is this a humorous reference im too young to understand?


i believe it was crackerjax who repeatedly said, in the global warming debate, FOLLOW THE MONEY


so i just have 3 words

The Carlyle Group


that is all


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 2, 2010)

Keenly said:


> dark glasses? is this a humorous reference im too young to understand?
> 
> 
> i believe it was crackerjax who repeatedly said, in the global warming debate, FOLLOW THE MONEY
> ...



what? you seem to be really confused, with everything right now. 

hang in there. as much as it feels like it, your head won't really explode.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 2, 2010)

i just dont understand the dark glasses part

or why i cant post anymore comments on that dudes youtube


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 2, 2010)

Keenly said:


> i just dont understand the dark glasses part
> 
> or why i cant post anymore comments on that dudes youtube


dark glasses = government dudes


maybe you got blocked as spam.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> dark glasses = government dudes
> 
> 
> maybe you got blocked as spam.



lol, love how *i* got blocked with spam when he triple posts profanity, insults, and ignorance


i would love to take a shit in his store


----------



## tebor (Jan 2, 2010)

After Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and the Kennedy Assasination; 911 being an inside job is very plausible.

It is strange that the week after 911 several of the 19 accused hijackers were found alive by the BBC and they were wanting to know why they were being accused.

And also strange that in the weeks leading up to 911 that Muslims so devout that they would kill themselves, were drinking in strip clubs.

I'm not convinced it was an inside job, but there are many fishy circumstances surrounding the event.



Probably the Mossad. Their infiltration of The U.S. Department of Defense is well documented.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 2, 2010)

you wouldn't go to a strip club if you knew you were gonna die?


----------



## tebor (Jan 2, 2010)

I would.
But a person so sure in their religion that they would kill themselves?
Plus they have a few dozen virgins waiting for them upon their death.
I wouldn't risk going to the strip club if it could compromise my virgins.
and I doubt strict Muslims would either.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 2, 2010)

yes, unrelated events really ARE related!!!


Lawdy....


----------



## Keenly (Jan 2, 2010)

of course you ignore my statement


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 2, 2010)

Keenly said:


> of course you ignore my statement



oops, sorry.

i think it would be funny if you took a shit in tony's store. lol


----------



## Keenly (Jan 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> oops, sorry.
> 
> i think it would be funny if you took a shit in tony's store. lol


lol not you man, yeah i think im blocked for spam, but thats not going to stop me from hitting up all of his other videos


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> yeah, i imagined it all, ....


Apparently you do ... not to mention buying the government bullshit stories.
Boy watches US forces shoot father in head



RickWhite said:


> *FYI for the newcomers.*
> 
> My self and others have not only shot down every claim made in the thread, we have crushed them, destroyed them, massacred them, buried them in a shallow grave and took a bit steaming shit on them.
> 
> ...


I see Rick still can't handle the fact people want the truth of what really happen that day ... just can't resist trying to mislead people ... too bad for you this thread backs all we claim unlike you ... and people have judged for themselves that's why this thread goes on ... aw ... too bad ... so sad ... Li'll ricky can't get people to stop clicking on the thread ... 
I challenge any new comer to find these so called posts where we were crushed ... you don't see them waving that $1000 check for anyone that proves the evidence wrong in the one video I posted ... they blow a lot of shit out their asses ... nothing more ... find these posts ... and put them up ... show us where we were crushed ... you won't. You will only find they love to project their own short comings on to others. They know they can't win ... so they whine about ignoring the thread ... which isn't working out very well for them by the way ... We will watch for a response ... but we don't expect one.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 3, 2010)

Yah, he's the one trying to mislead ppl ... 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html

When Popular Mechanics says ur done ... ur done. No one under 30 believes you anymore.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 3, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Yah, he's the one trying to mislead ppl ...
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html
> 
> When Popular Mechanics says ur done ... ur done. No one under 30 believes you anymore.


Yeah he is just like you ... leave it to disinformation/deniers to use report that have been proven bogus in this thread ... remember way back on page 39 post 382 ... no when science says PM is done ... it's really done. 

And let's not forget this ...
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics. ​ It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.


... and this ...


Popular Mechanics' Assault on 911



... and this ...


_Popular Mechanics_ Attacks Its[SIZE=+3]"9/11 LIES" Straw Man  [/SIZE]
The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack. ​ 
... and of course ...we can't for get this oldie but goodie ... 
Popular Mechanics Debunked
[youtube]WULRQCgvsdE[/youtube]

Bwaa ha ha ha ... sure no one under 30 believes me ... that's why they keep coming to this thread! That why you keep posting ... you just can't stand the fact they do ... and where is the $1000 check proving the info in the video post is bullshit?  You and li'l ricky just love to mislead ... how's that working out for ya ... 
Bwaa ha ha ha ... it's sooo easy to make people like you look stupid.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 3, 2010)

Check it ... Im sure some of you will recognize and remember some of them.

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know...
In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or mainstream story of events. Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original mainstream view of history, and actually not being skeptical. This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time. In fact, it is common for "hit pieces" or "debunking articles" to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories. This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy. Skeptics magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11. They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones, in fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make. This was used as the "final investigation" for looking into the conspiracy theories. Convenient, huh?

1.*The Dreyfus Affair:* In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison.

2.*The Mafia:* This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society's secrets to law enforcement officials.

3.*MK-ULTRA:* In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a "truth serum" to use on communist spies

 4.*Operation Mockingbird:* Also in the 1950s to '70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda.

5.*Manhattan** Project*: The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. 

6.*Asbestos*: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution.

7.*Watergate:* Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. 

8.*The Tuskegee Syphilis Study:* The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972.

9.*Operation Northwoods:* In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. 

10.*1990 Testimony of Nayirah: *A 15-year-old girl named Nayirah testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die.

11.*Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the* *60s*: COINTELPROCounter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. 

12.*The Iran-Contra Affair:* In 1985 and '86, the White House authorized government officials to secretly trade weapons with the Israeli government in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran

13.*The BCCI Scandal: *The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The Bank was registered in Luxembourg.

14.*CIA Drug Running in LA*: Pulitzer Prize Award winning journalist Gary Webb exposed this alongside LAPD Narcotics Officer turned whislteblower and author Michael Ruppert, CIA Contract Pilot Terry Reed, and many others. 

15.*Gulf** of Tonkin Never Happened*: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats.

16.*The Business Plot*: In 1933, group of wealthy businessmen that allegedly included the heads of Chase Bank, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, the DuPont family and Senator Prescott Bush tried to recruit Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler to lead a military coup against President FDR and install a fascist dictatorship in the United States.

17.*July 20, 1944 Conspiracy to Assassinate Hitler*: Among another 20 some odd attempts, this one was one of the largest conspiracies involving hundreds of loyalists in the highest echelons of Hitlers inner circle. Near the end of WWII, things were rapidly going south for Germany and the time seemed ripe for guilt-ridden Nazi officers to assassinate Hitler and overthrow his government.

18.*Operation Ajax*: For years, Britain had a spiffy trade deal with Iran regarding their prodigious oil fields. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was basically a giant money machine for the Anglo half, while the Iranian half got shafted.

19.*Operation Snow White*: Some time during the 1970s, the Church of Scientology Apparently, the Church of ScientologyUnited States government in history.

20.*Operation Gladio*: Gladio is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Italy after World War II, intended to continue anti-communist resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe.

21.*The Church Committee*: The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church in 1975.

22.*The New World Order*: This popular conspiracy theory claims that a small group of international elites controls and manipulates governments, industry and media organisations worldwide. The primary tool they use to dominate nations is the system of central banking. They are said to have funded and in some cases caused most of the major wars of the last 200 years, primarily through carrying out false flag attacks to manipulate populations into supporting them, and have a grip on the world economy, deliberately causing inflation and depressions at will.

23.*United States** House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations* *(HSCA)*: The HSCAwas established in 1976 to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination and the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination.

24.*1919 World Series Conspiracy*: The 1919 World Series (often referred to as the Black Sox Scandal) resulted in the most famous scandal in baseball history.

25.*Karen Silkwood*: Karen was an American labor union activist and chemical technician at the Kerr-McGee plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, United States. Silkwood's job was making plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods.
Silkwood's body was found in her car, which had run off the road and struck a culvert. The car contained no documents. She was pronounced dead at the scene from a "classic, one-car sleeping-driver accident".

26.*CIA Drug Smuggling in Arkansas*: August 23, 1987, in a rural community just south of Little Rock, police officers murdered two teenage boys because they witnessed a police-protected drug drop

27.*Bohemian Grove*: For years, many conspiracy theorists were saying that the rich and powerful met every year in the woods and worshiped a giant stone owl in an occult fashion. It turns out, ABC, CBS, NBC, and many other credible news agencies investigated this and found out, its true. 

28.*Operation Paperclip*: Operation Paperclip was the code name for the 1945 Office of Strategic Services, Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency recruitment of German scientists from Nazi Germany to the U.S. after VE Day. 

29.*The Round Table*: British businessman Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire reannexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an "Imperial Federation" to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace.

30.*The Illuminati*: The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded on May 1st, 1776, in Ingolstadt (Upper Bavaria), by Adam Weishaupt, who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt. 

31.*The Trilateral Commission*: The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan.

32.*Big Brother or the Shadow Government*: It is also called the DeepState by Peter Dale Scott, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. 

33.*The Federal Reserve Bank*: The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability. 

Tons of information and lots of videos ....


----------



## Keenly (Jan 3, 2010)

still no response from cracker on the carlyle group


you know, the bush and bin laden families company that made millions off of the invasion of iraq

no big deal, just 1 in 1,000,000 coincidences


----------



## RickWhite (Jan 3, 2010)

For all those following.

In past posts I stomped Growrebel into the ground 20 times over and then I rubbed his nose in his own shit. I made him stop posting and hide for about a month until new people came along who didn't see me wipe the floor with him.

All he is doing at this point is repeating himself thinking that if he keeps repeating himself people will believe him. I shot down every one of his claims over and over and over and over. He just keeps repeating himself - I don't know why they don't ban him already.

Anyway, that is the truth. Don't waste time arguing with him - he will just keep repeating himself.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 3, 2010)

Go back and quote what you did, rick. you didn't do shit.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 3, 2010)

LOL rick is as bad as that goodstuff guy


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 4, 2010)




----------



## Keenly (Jan 4, 2010)

good ol bohemian grove


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 4, 2010)

See there... they're burning a live person


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

RickWhite said:


> For all those following.
> 
> In past posts I stomped Growrebel into the ground 20 times over and then I rubbed his nose in his own shit. I made him stop posting and hide for about a month until new people came along who didn't see me wipe the floor with him.
> 
> ...


 you just described yourself 

Growreb has been here the whole time. where have YOU been hiding the last month or so? you have failed horribly !
It is people like you and CJ that make the whole inside job seem very plausible. just more proof that the american public dont pay attention NOR READ.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 4, 2010)

Everything is proof to the delusional. This is the best thread for pointing out that. GR is the king of fools here, no doubt. I'm guessing he accepts it with pride, but some of us shoot a bit higher, make that much higher.

Of course you can't be disproven, ur all no different from fundamentalist Christians. You deny anything which disturbs ur negative outlook on the world.

This thread is one big fail. But it is helpful for viewers to see real crazy in action, thanks GR! Ur a shining example of what ppl should avoid doing with their lives.

And the big letters make you look stupid, or blind.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> When Popular Mechanics says ur done ... ur done. No one under 30 believes you anymore.


Does this mean that all the folks over 30 are wrong? 

The government told Barry Jennings that the broilers blew up in 7. Now that Barry is dead , your lil pop. mech. site says the collapse was due to fire alone? 
Im not sure cj understands ANY of this anymore? i mean fuck did u even read the NIST report? 
_
*300 pounds seized at border , tonite at 11* _


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

Keenly said:


> still no response from cracker on the carlyle group
> 
> 
> you know, the bush and bin laden families company that made millions off of the invasion of iraq
> ...


he is way more interested in his "crazy people" book. he ONLY responds with how everyone is crazy . he has never even heard of the carlye group. he has never read anything. i bet he didnt even read his own link to popular mech.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 4, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> Does this mean that all the folks over 30 are wrong?
> 
> The government told Barry Jennings that the broilers blew up in 7. Now that Barry is dead , your lil pop. mech. site says the collapse was due to fire alone?
> Im not sure cj understands ANY of this anymore? i mean fuck did u even read the NIST report?
> ...


It means the vast majority of folks with a modicum of education are not fooled by copy pasted you tube videos. They go with the experts and the intense investigation ... and ... gasp ... common sense.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> It means the vast majority of folks with a modicum of education are not fooled by copy pasted you tube videos. They go with the experts and the intense investigation ... and ... gasp ... common sense.


How could you believe Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority) hes no "expert"
I knew i should have been posting utubes instead of typing, and i think that keen and hayduke will agree that in *your* case (and probably your case only), all we have to do is post a utube and u will watch, cause i know you sure in the fuck dont read.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 4, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> How could you believe Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority) hes no "expert"
> I knew i should have been posting utubes instead of typing, and i think that keen and hayduke will agree that in *your* case (and probably your case only), all we have to do is post a utube and u will watch, cause i know you sure in the fuck dont read.


how can you believe ANYONE?

you will NEVER know the truth. 

deal with it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 4, 2010)

Why is Dylan Avery alive?

That's proof enough right there.


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 4, 2010)

Craaaazy


coo-coo.......coo-coo........coo-coo


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 4, 2010)

Great answer ... shuffle off now.

If you can't answer a simple question, ur over matched.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 4, 2010)

[youtube]SwOCu1phcNQ[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 4, 2010)

wow, that convinced me!!

They must be right!!



No, it's not political......


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Why is Dylan Avery alive?
> 
> That's proof enough right there.



I dont know why the fuck he is alive? Should he be dead?
he is defiantly not a key witness to 911 ,and he was not in building 7 when the explosion blew the elevator out. so he is just crazy like all the rest of us that have questions. 
Why keep changing the subject? that dont make me forget the issue. 
look if you just wanna keep calling us all crazy , then thats fine but your just making yourself look like a complete jackass.
If you would like to grow up a lil and debate the issue then lets do that, If not then why even waste you fuckin time on us crazys?


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 4, 2010)

Wyteboi dont get too upset, CJ is just as crazy as everyone who posts in the Politics section, but thats why i love you all sooo much


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> wow, that convinced me!!
> 
> They must be right!!
> 
> ...


i see you responded quick to a youtube?
foot right in the mouth again


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 4, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> I dont know why the fuck he is alive? Should he be dead?
> he is defiantly not a key witness to 911 ,and he was not in building 7 when the explosion blew the elevator out. so he is just crazy like all the rest of us that have questions.
> Why keep changing the subject? that dont make me forget the issue.
> look if you just wanna keep calling us all crazy , then thats fine but your just making yourself look like a complete jackass.
> If you would like to grow up a lil and debate the issue then lets do that, If not then why even waste you fuckin time on us crazys?



there is nothing to debate. everything that can be said has been said 100 times. there will be no "BIG REVEAL". even if there was an investigation that disclosed everything there would still be dispute. it's not gonna happen and if it did it wouldn't matter. and if what you all believe is true then it would pretty much destroy everything this country is based on. so why would the government cut it's own throat? if they did do it they will NEVER tell you. no investigation can prove 100% what happened. you would need a CONFESSION from the top dude. you aren't gonna get it. 

get over it. move on. thank god you live where you do.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3613944]Wyteboi dont get too upset, CJ is just as crazy as everyone who posts in the Politics section, but thats why i love you all sooo much[/QUOTE]

i learned long ago to not get too upset about a subject that most do not understand or even care to.
Now if u directly call me a name (like crazy as u just did) then i might get a lil shook up but nothin a  cant fix....

but i will continue to do my part, because i am a good person and far from crazy.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> there is nothing to debate. everything that can be said has been said 100 times. there will be no "BIG REVEAL". even if there was an investigation that disclosed everything there would still be dispute. it's not gonna happen and if it did it wouldn't matter. and if what you all believe is true then it would pretty much destroy everything this country is based on. so why would the government cut it's own throat? if they did do it they will NEVER tell you. no investigation can prove 100% what happened. you would need a CONFESSION from the top dude. you aren't gonna get it.
> 
> get over it. move on. thank god you live where you do.


I agree with most of this post but i am sorry i cannot just get over it.
i just hope to get the questions out there, thats all.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 4, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> I agree with most of this post but i am sorry i cannot just get over it.
> i just hope to get the questions out there, thats all.


if "that's all" you want. then you could have stopped posting in this thread 6 months ago.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 4, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> i learned long ago to not get too upset about a subject that most do not understand or even care to.
> Now if u directly call me a name (like crazy as u just did) then i might get a lil shook up but nothin a  cant fix....
> 
> but i will continue to do my part, because i am a good person and far from crazy.


oh, but I do understand ur position. i just reject it, like most everyone else.

My response to the youtube was sarcastic ... get it? Now there's a connection you might have missed ... ur lack of comprehension and conspiracy thinking.

Dylan should be dead if what he said was really true. If he actually uncovered something as massive as thousands of co conspirators working in tandem under our very noses, he would have been snuffed out immediately.

the fact that NO ONE bothered to whack him shows there is no conspiracy.

but let's take it a bit farther. IF there is a massive conspiracy with thousands of accomplices, and they managed to pull off killing 3000+citizens and foreigners ... why again? ... to get us into Iraq?  Be serious for a moment.

Then the spoiler would be NO WMD'S in Iraq. So they pull off a massive conspiracy of unbelievable complexity, but FORGET to plant WMD's in Iraq? A much much simpler task, and yet, they missed that and got egg all over their face! 

Sounds like common sense doesn't it? Uhhh, no it doesn't.

You all sound crazy as loons.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 4, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Great answer ... shuffle off now.
> 
> If you can't answer a simple question, ur over matched.


you such a fucking hypocrite


i just told you to look at the carlyle group.. which you ignored twice


just ignore what you know will prove you wrong

"follow the money" as you always yell to the warmers


you claim to be "in the middle" but on every single issue you take you pick 1 side, and no matter what happens, you think your always right, and everyone else is always wrong

so once again cracker, cause you KNOW it will make you look like a fucking idiot, look into the carlyle group

its a major player in this event, and those after


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> oh, but I do understand ur position. i just reject it, like most everyone else.


thats fine i dont have a problem with that.



CrackerJax said:


> My response to the youtube was sarcastic ... get it? Now there's a connection you might have missed ... ur lack of comprehension and conspiracy thinking.


i get it alright. yes your *response *was sarcastic but you watching it was not. like i said before you are easily influenced.



CrackerJax said:


> Dylan should be dead if what he said was really true. If he actually uncovered something as massive as thousands of co conspirators working in tandem under our very noses, he would have been snuffed out immediately.


if that was the case then i would have been snuffed out years ago, he is JUST ONE of alot of people. He did not uncover shit! just relaying the shit he has learned.


CrackerJax said:


> the fact that NO ONE bothered to whack him shows there is no conspiracy.


This is just plain ridiculous. what are u 13? 



CrackerJax said:


> but let's take it a bit farther. IF there is a massive conspiracy with thousands of accomplices, and they managed to pull off killing 3000+citizens and foreigners ... why again? ... to get us into Iraq?  Be serious for a moment.


i been serious this whole thread , you should try that. If you cannot read then i cannot help you, this thread is FULL of "gains" that come from that war.
so yes mission accomplished. your rights are took away for the sake of the next mans pocket , and your an idiot so you dont give a fuck.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 4, 2010)

> thats fine i dont have a problem with that.


We agree on something.




> i get it alright. yes your *response *was sarcastic but you watching it was not. like i said before you are easily influenced.


So U'd rather I not watch it and just comment randomly? I watched it long enough to get the humor of it. I'm pretty quick tho. 



> if that was the case then i would have been snuffed out years ago, he is JUST ONE of alot of people. He did not uncover shit! just relaying the shit he has learned.


So after ALL the trouble the SECRET GLOBAL CABAL went through to destroy NYC etc... they let youtube defeat them? Cause that's what ur saying. If these ppl are THAT smart and coordinated, snuffing out anyone from day one of knowledge would have stopped this crazy train from leaving the station.



> This is just plain ridiculous. what are u 13?


No, I'm a grown up, how bout you? You speak of murders in these threads with EASE, and yet you think these powermongers wouldn't snuff out a few college kids? Don't forget, according to you, they're murderers. 




> i been serious this whole thread , you should try that. If you cannot read then i cannot help you, this thread is FULL of "gains" that come from that war.


But they blew it son.... why? If they had really been planning something ... why then go out PUBLICLY in front of everyone ... and BE WRONG? Slipping in some yellow cake would have SEALED the DEAL. There's a bit of common sense for you..... So why the HUGE mistake? But of course, that's PART of the PLAN isn't it!!!  Boy, I must be naive.... yah, it's me, not you.  




> so yes mission accomplished. your rights are took away for the sake of the next mans pocket , and your an idiot so you dont give a fuck.


I've had no rights taken away. No law abiding citizen is in any danger from the patriot act, which bt the way has NOTHING to do with 9/11. 

You can thank the terrorists for the Patriot Act.... That's some rabbit hole you live in.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 4, 2010)

i see i woke you up now.............now if you could just read/comprehend as good as you watch/hear you'll be in here....................


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 4, 2010)

911 is like UFO's 

its the best known secret


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 4, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you wouldn't go to a strip club if you knew you were gonna die?


Not if it screwed me outta 73 virgins for eternity...are you kidding? A few tweeker chicks with fake boobs with the lights low? I'll take the carne fresca por favor.



CrackerJax said:


> Of course you can't be disproven, ur all no different from fundamentalist Christians. You deny anything which disturbs ur negative outlook on the world.


The exact same is rightfully said of the people who , in spite of glaring problems with the official story, blinded with false patriotism refuse to believe that the fairy tale of apple pie, baseball and Chevrolet...may be just that.


wyteboi said:


> why even waste you fuckin time on us crazys?


I think you can get some award for posting a whole lot in lots of different threads...



fdd2blk said:


> and if what you all believe is true then it would pretty much destroy everything this country is based on. so why would the government cut it's own throat? if they did do it they will NEVER tell you. no investigation can prove 100% what happened. you would need a CONFESSION from the top dude. you aren't gonna get it.
> 
> get over it. move on. thank god you live where you do.


Absolutely. However settling for corruption of government and losses of liberty would make the founders of this fine Nation physically ill. In fact they would risk the lives of their selves and families for what is perceived as right. We are all the product of a watered down gene pool. It would be good to maybe expose all the discrepancies in the official story, for as many to see as possible (thread rebirth/continue whatever) so that it is easier to recognize when news events are used to shepherd. Remember the Alamo!


----------



## Keenly (Jan 4, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> No law abiding citizen is in any danger from the patriot act, which bt the way has NOTHING to do with 9/11.
> 
> You can thank the terrorists for the Patriot Act.... That's some rabbit hole you live in.



proves you have no idea what the hell your talking about

good game, you lose


they must try our hardest to make us look bad and discredit us...

we cant let this turn into a rational debate oh no, theyll lose it

so its insults, slanders, bullshit, and more insults


----------



## tebor (Jan 5, 2010)

Patriot act shits on the Constitution and what America was supposed to stand for.
All politicians that signed it deserve to be tried for treason and punished accordingly(hanging from a tall oak tree with a long hemp rope.)


----------



## Keenly (Jan 5, 2010)

tebor said:


> Patriot act shits on the Constitution and what America was supposed to stand for.
> All politicians that signed it deserve to be tried for treason and punished accordingly(hanging from a tall oak tree with a long hemp rope.)


maybe hung is going a little far, but publicly shamed and removed from office, possibly even removed from the united states


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 5, 2010)

Keenly said:


> maybe hung is going a little far, but publicly shamed and removed from office, possibly even removed from the united states


penalty for treason is death


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 5, 2010)

So tell me ... what rights has a law abiding citizen lost with the Patriot Act?

Think hard.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 5, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> So tell me ... what rights has a law abiding citizen lost with the Patriot Act?
> 
> Think hard.



heres a sweet .PDF just for you bro


http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf


its fucking amazing how google search works


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 5, 2010)

Just tell me ... or don't you know?


----------



## Keenly (Jan 5, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Just tell me ... or don't you know?


the pdf is right there... click on it and stop expecting us to do it all for you


its in huge bold letters, so you could read it from the other side of the room, its 3 or 4 pages long, but the text is so big its less than a page if normal font were added


you can do this man, ill hold your hand if you really need me to, but you can read a pdf


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 6, 2010)

That tells me you don't know. You post about things, but U just follow the bouncing ball.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 6, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> That tells me you don't know. You post about things, but U just follow the bouncing ball.


this is literally ignoring the other side


if your not going to hear us out, why are you still posting in this thread exactly

ive told you this before, but this time, your literally sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the debate


----------



## tebor (Jan 6, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> So tell me ... what rights has a law abiding citizen lost with the Patriot Act?
> 
> Think hard.


Where to begin?

And I am not a law abiding citizen. I am a drug user that "supports terrorism" by buying and using drugs. I have no rights.

the New York Times reported incidents of the patriot act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause.

The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes.

In November 2005, Business Week reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of "National Security Letters" and had obtained one million financial records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". 

This didn't just include financial records, but credit records, employment records, and in some cases, health records.
Furthermore, this information is databased and maintained indefinitely by the FBI. Previous legislation required that federal law enforcement destroy any records harvested during an investigation that pertained to anyone deemed innocent. The Patriot Act superseded that and now the records are maintained indefinitely. According to the legislation, they may be "shared with third-parties where appropriate" yet no where in the legislation does it define who these third parties are or what conditions would be deemed appropriate for the sharing of such records.
The large scale wiretapping and tracing of calls to and from foreign countries also falls under this. Millions of phone records were harvested, fed into a database and were searched for patterns of calling to and from numbers of known terrorists. To date, there have been no announced arrests from this program.
Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.




In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Acta law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others.



and thats just the tip of the iceberg. They are just getting started.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 6, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> That tells me you don't know. You post about things, but U just follow the bouncing ball.


Good ole Cracka jacks. Being hard headed as usual


----------



## smokebros (Jan 6, 2010)

shit was an inside job


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

Keenly said:


> this is literally ignoring the other side
> 
> 
> if your not going to hear us out, why are you still posting in this thread exactly
> ...



you had to google an answer and yet you still can't come up with one. 

off the top of your head, what freedoms have we lost?


notice i have not insulted or taken sides. i stated a fact and asked a question.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you had to google an answer and yet you still can't come up with one.
> 
> off the top of your head, what freedoms have we lost?
> 
> ...


Who cares whether he googled it or not? 

The point is it takes away rights. Everyone could be labeled a terrorist now. Will we? Probably not... but that's not the point. They shouldn't have the power to begin with.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

jfgordon1 said:


> Who cares whether he googled it or not?
> 
> The point is it takes away rights. Everyone could be labeled a terrorist now. Will we? Probably not... but that's not the point. They shouldn't have the power to begin with.



the point is is he heard someone say "it takes away rights" so he is simply parroting it back out there. he doesn't even understand what it means.


----------



## tebor (Jan 6, 2010)

Does everyone have me on ignore?
I'm not that annoying am I?

I just posted a list of constitutional rights violations that i find very disturbing.
they were all specific incidents.

And here are some general rights violations.

Also _Right to a speedy and public trial:_
the fact that American citizens can be arrested and held indefinitely without a trial.
^^Violates the 6th amendment 

also _Right to legal representation:_
The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. 
^^violates the 6th amendment

also _Freedom of speech:_
The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. 
^^violates the 1st amendment


also _Right to liberty:_
Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys. 
^^violates the 6th amendment

_also Freedom of association:_ 
To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity. 
^^violates the 1st amendment


----------



## Keenly (Jan 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you had to google an answer and yet you still can't come up with one.
> 
> off the top of your head, what freedoms have we lost?
> 
> ...



i brought it all right to you guys


the thought that because its a pdf file and its not fully typed out on this forum for you that its not good enough is just ridiculous


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

Keenly said:


> i brought it all right to you guys
> 
> 
> the thought that because its a pdf file and its not fully typed out on this forum for you that its not good enough is just ridiculous


it would have been cool to understand how YOU felt. that is all i'm trying to say.


----------



## tebor (Jan 6, 2010)

> its not fully typed out on this forum for you that its not good enough is just ridiculous


I typed out some key issues.
Will somebody that supports the patriot act address them?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

tebor said:


> I typed out some key issues.
> Will somebody that supports the patriot act address them?


all posts of reason will go unnoticed.  

site rules.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 6, 2010)

tebor said:


> i typed out some key issues.
> Will somebody that supports the patriot act address them?




+111111111111


----------



## tebor (Jan 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> all posts of reason will go unnoticed.
> 
> site rules.


Damn. After all this time, I finally make a reasonable post and it goes unnoticed.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

tebor said:


> Damn. After all this time, I finally make a reasonable post and it goes unnoticed.



maybe i should have said "ignored".


----------



## MediMary (Jan 6, 2010)

hey tebor, congrats, you have the same amount of rep as fdd, with 40,000 fewer posts
lol


----------



## tebor (Jan 6, 2010)

thats not true. the bars stop after 11.
His actual rep points are probably 1000 times the amount of mine.
And most of my rep came from the pics that make you lol thread. 
There should be 2 rep lines imo.
One for making an entertaining post
and one for actually offering good advice or help with growing.


----------



## MediMary (Jan 6, 2010)

ahh it looks like you both have 6 bars of rep... guess i was a little confused how it works


----------



## supertiger (Jan 6, 2010)

Here's what's actually happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4cbxAlBuC4


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

MediMary said:


> ahh it looks like you both have 6 bars of rep... guess i was a little confused how it works


you gonna hang on my dick all day or what?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 6, 2010)

Tebor, Ill rep you when I can . I'm via cell phone and it won't let me (bored at work) Whoever thinks that the patriot act doesn't take away rights need to slowly remove the cock and balls of GWB from their mouth


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

i have the right to do another bong rip. i will now exercise that right.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i have the right to do another bong rip. i will now exercise that right.


Actually you don't lol. but you're going to do it anyway . 

But hey.. that's why we're all here


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 6, 2010)

jfgordon1 said:


> Actually you don't lol. but you're going to do it anyway .
> 
> But hey.. that's why we're all here


the state of califonia issued me "the right". i have a card from the department health that proves this, and that's good enough for me.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 6, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> the state of califonia issued me "the right". i have a card from the department health that proves this, and that's good enough for me.


 Take your smug else where !


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 6, 2010)

I found this while debating a woman that they found a passport of a hijacker at the WTC. She thinks the democrats made it up. 



> Suqamis passport survived the attack: a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and
> handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers
> collapsed.



http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf

page 16

That's right... it's in the 9/11 Commission


----------



## supertiger (Jan 6, 2010)

jfgordon1 said:


> I found this while debating a woman that they found a passport of a hijacker at the WTC. She thinks the democrats made it up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wish this man would run for president.. I would trust him even more so then Ron Paul.
[youtube]s48kHu-zDhE[/youtube]
[youtube]OtZXWXpP22U[/youtube]


----------



## Keenly (Jan 6, 2010)

i guess the number one reason i wouldnt vote for jesse is because i honestly hate the sound of his voice


he loves to hear himself talk and he talks very slowly so it takes him forever to say something



cool dude though


but SHIT i was so happy today, listening to 98.5 (98 rock in the sac area) today on my way to work, dogface and joe were talking about charlie sheen and how he came out and said it was an inside job


dogface , being the prick he is supposed to act like as a counter personality to joe, denounced it and everything

then something amazing happened, a listener called in and recommended they both watch loose change, and they were instantly interested

made my day that i heard them say they would both watch it, being famous radio dj's played throughout california 


whats cool about them is joe is an avid marijuana smoker, and when he smokes during the show, they call it "moving the car" lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 7, 2010)

yes, the sound of a persons voice is a good indicator on how they'll govern ...  

lawdy.....


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 7, 2010)

tebor said:


> Does everyone have me on ignore?
> I'm not that annoying am I?
> 
> I just posted a list of constitutional rights violations that i find very disturbing.
> ...


I didn't ignore it, but you haven't answered it either. 

My premise is that LAW abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act.

I stand by that... because it's true. I mean, it's been in place now for 8 years ... where's the list of ppl crushed? There should be hundreds if not thousands of cases of oppression and yet ... all we hear are WORDS.

The WORDS don't jive with the ACTION. The WORDS are false.


----------



## supertiger (Jan 7, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> I didn't ignore it, but you haven't answered it either.
> 
> My premise is that LAW abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act.


The control grid is being setup. They may not use the patriot act against you now but they probably will one day. FISA has allowed for video camera's to be placed at every intersection in the US. Are these camera's looking at terrorists or Americans? 

Recording every IP address of every website you ever visit and filing it away along with listening and or recording every telephone call in the US is focused on terrorists or Americans?

Detention centers all over the USA costing billions of dollars over the years, which are also owned by private financiers which include Dick Cheney, are all land rejuvenation projects right?

*"HARDIN, Mont. (CBS/AP) This is the strange story of how American Police Force, a little known company which claims to specialize in training military and security forces overseas, has seemingly taken control of a $27 million, never-used jail, and a rural Montana town's nonexistent police force. 

After arriving in this tiny city with three Mercedes SUVs marked with the logo of a police department that has never existed, representatives of the obscure California security company said preparations were under way to take over Hardin's jail, which has no prisoners. *

There are at least 20 like this one sitting vacant but for some reason being fully staffed as we speak with PRIVATE POLICE. Let's not forget NORTHC0M who's entire purpose of existence is aimed at controlling Americans. This was illegal before 9/11. How about the cabinet positions created, which never existed before, that are used to bypass the legal framework of our government? 

What we have witnessed is a hostile takeover of the likes of the Nazi's. We have all traded our freedom for security and TPTB are about to lay the smack down on all of us. 9/11 was our  Reichstag fire.



> I stand by that... because it's true. I mean, it's been in place now for 8 years ... where's the list of ppl crushed? There should be hundreds if not thousands of cases of oppression and yet ... all we hear are WORDS.
> 
> The WORDS don't jive with the ACTION. The WORDS are false.


Actually the words are right in line with the actions. The seeds are all being planted and when the right time comes all they will do is add the water.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 7, 2010)

One more time, if ur NOT a terrorist, but a law abiding citizen ... you won't even feel it.

it's been in place for 8 years now.... where's the horror? I haven't felt one thing change in my life.

It's designed to keep us all safer. Want every right that can fit on the head of a pin? What's it all worth if those rights give ur enemies the ability to destroy you and ur families?

Think it through.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 7, 2010)

[youtube]hnzHtm1jhL4[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 7, 2010)

That's a no sh*t.


----------



## tebor (Jan 7, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> *I didn't ignore it, but you haven't answered it either. *
> 
> My premise is that LAW abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act.
> 
> ...




Maybe you missed my other post. Where I provided a few specific incidents of the patriot act screwing over law abiding citizens,Which nobody on this forum is unless they are lucky enough to live in a medical state.
I'li repost it:



> Where to begin?
> 
> And I am not a law abiding citizen. I am a drug user that "supports terrorism" by buying and using drugs. I have no rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## tebor (Jan 7, 2010)

also 
The ACLU and an unnamed Internet service provider challenged the FBI's use of expanded powers under the Patriot Act to compel Internet access firms to turn over information about their customers or subscribers. The companies were then barred from ever disclosing the searches took place.

The Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report last week detailing the FBI's misuse of national security letters to collect information about innocent Americans without any connection to terrorism.



[youtube]M9zGhYSIAP8[/youtube]


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

Keenly said:


> but SHIT i was so happy today, listening to 98.5 (98 rock in the sac area) today on my way to work, dogface and joe were talking about charlie sheen and how he came out and said it was an inside job
> 
> dogface , being the prick he is supposed to act like as a counter personality to joe, denounced it and everything
> 
> ...


and this is what it is all about 
thats the shit that makes my day too!
they do not have top believe everything in loose change but at least they are giving it a chance. CJ ?


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> I didn't ignore it, but you haven't answered it either.
> 
> My premise is that LAW abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act.
> 
> ...


It must be nice to live in your lil "law abiding" world. 
it all goes back to the comprehension thing, you think people dont go to jail wrongfully EVERYDAY? you really think this does not apply to you? 
Like i said plenty of times , YOU NEED TO READ CJ. 
or at least answer some of the Q's thrown at u ?


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

tebor said:


> I typed out some key issues.
> Will somebody that supports the patriot act address them?


wont happen. they will just say ur crazy and then go to the next post and say i am crazy.


bottom line is , even if i am crazy , i know more about this war then you will ever care to CJ. 
READ CJ ! its good for ya.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

"New York Times reported incidents of the patriot act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause."
Which means if i told on u for something then they could hold you until they see fit WITHOUT cause. that goes for you too cj.
it wont always happen this way but the rights have been took. you dont have to be a fuckin criminal for the patriot act to take some of your rights away! 
CIA is allowed to launder money (thats their job) but that dont affect YOU right this second so who cares....)


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 8, 2010)

oh yeah, charlie sheen, ...... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8445587.stm



AHAHHAHASHAHAAHAHHAHHAHHAHHhhahahhahahahahaahah


i'd be embarrassed for even mentioning his name. which i am.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> oh yeah, charlie sheen, ...... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8445587.stm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


??? off topic again.
Must just be intended for CJ. he will love this even though it has nothing to do with dems and how they are ruining our world.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 8, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> ??? off topic again.
> Must just be intended for CJ. he will love this even though it has nothing to do with dems and how they are ruining our world.



4 posts ago *YOU* quoted keenly who said he heard charlie sheen say it was an inside job. charlie sheen and his wife are crack addicts. 

nice, reputable source.  

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/01/08/2010-01-08_charlie_sheens_wife_brooke_mueller_went_to_rehab_for_crack_addiction_report.html


once again, i have to explain my posts.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 8, 2010)

you all think you have some superior knowledge and most of you can't even follow along on a pot forum. i have to explain shit in this section more so then in the grow sections. you all make my day.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> 4 posts ago *YOU* quoted keenly who said he heard charlie sheen say it was an inside job. charlie sheen and his wife are crack addicts.
> 
> nice, reputable source.
> 
> ...


nothing to explain. most of us know charlie thinks it was an inside job.
NO ONE on here said he was a source?

he is just a good way to get it out there, most americans will believe him (or look into it theirselves) because he is charlie sheen.
he got your attention quick.

u just like to see people argue.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 8, 2010)

most americans will believe him?

where the fuck do you all come up with this shit?

i like to argue? you are telling me a crack addicted wife abuser inspires me. of course i'm gonna argue. or at least laugh. i do laugh at all this.


just so you know, ... he is NOT a good way to "get it out there". i've read more about his personal vices than i have about how he feels about 911. so what's that tell you?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 8, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> ??? off topic again.
> Must just be intended for CJ. he will love this even though it has nothing to do with dems and how they are ruining our world.





fdd2blk said:


> 4 posts ago *YOU* quoted keenly who said he heard charlie sheen say it was an inside job. charlie sheen and his wife are crack addicts.
> 
> nice, reputable source.
> 
> ...





wyteboi said:


> nothing to explain. most of us know charlie thinks it was an inside job.
> NO ONE on here said he was a source?
> 
> he is just a good way to get it out there, most americans will believe him (or look into it theirselves) because he is charlie sheen.
> ...






am i the only one getting this. maybe it's just me.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 8, 2010)

Keenly said:


> i guess the number one reason i wouldnt vote for jesse is because i honestly hate the sound of his voice
> 
> 
> he loves to hear himself talk and he talks very slowly so it takes him forever to say something
> ...





wyteboi said:


> nothing to explain. most of us know charlie thinks it was an inside job.
> NO ONE on here said he was a source?
> 
> he is just a good way to get it out there, most americans will believe him (or look into it theirselves) because he is charlie sheen.
> ...




this would be fun, if it weren't so embarrassing.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 8, 2010)

Haha whoever uses charlie sheen as a source is a fuccking idiot. However, he does get the word out...


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> most americans will believe him?
> 
> where the fuck do you all come up with this shit?


believe him "OR LOOK INTO IT THEIRSELVES" <you left that part out?
The number 1 search on yahoo right now is priscilla presley . people (not just americans , sorry if i said it wrong) are alot more interested in "stars" and games and shit like that, then they are boring history or current events, so alot more people would rather hear charlie say it then a boring guy on youtube. anyways fdd u know exactly where im goin with this.



fdd2blk said:


> i like to argue? you are telling me a crack addicted wife abuser inspires me. of course i'm gonna argue. or at least laugh. i do laugh at all this.


see you brought up charlie to begin with, keen was just talkin about his day, not charlie. 

and you know him thats my point. when did u find out he was a crackhead ect...? that probably changed your view on him alot. but u still know him and read about him.
i never even thought he inspired u, let alone say it.



fdd2blk said:


> just so you know, ... he is NOT a good way to "get it out there". i've read more about his personal vices than i have about how he feels about 911. so what's that tell you?


this backs up my point.


it might be fun for u to laugh at us but dont jump in just to add more pages.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

maybe i am just stupid or slow cause i really am lost now. O'well it happens to all of us. 
i still made MY point. if i was a jackass while doing so then fuck it


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 8, 2010)

jfgordon1 said:


> Haha whoever uses charlie sheen as a source is a fuccking idiot. However, he does get the word out...


This is my only point with sheen.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 8, 2010)

well FDD, your sort of wrong, in the sense that i did not use charlie sheen as a source..

never even tried to... if you will read the entire post i made i was telling a story of something that happened that made me happy that day

i was *not* sourcing the sheen, i dont quite understand how just because you saw that i wrote his name down that i was sourcing him, you gotta read the entire posts man


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 8, 2010)

supertiger said:


> Here's what's actually happened.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4cbxAlBuC4


It continues to happen



tebor said:


> also
> The ACLU and an unnamed Internet service provider challenged the FBI's use of expanded powers under the Patriot Act to compel Internet access firms to turn over information about their customers or subscribers. The companies were then barred from ever disclosing the searches took place.
> 
> The Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report last week detailing the FBI's misuse of national security letters to collect information about innocent Americans without any connection to terrorism.
> ...


Excellent job ...  ... notice no one has been able to dispute it ... and that kid is still in jail. Every time they ask ... duh ... what rights have we lost? ... I'm going to slam them with this video. Thanks so much for pointing this ... extremely informative.


----------



## tebor (Jan 9, 2010)

*In-flight confrontations can lead to terrorism charges. lady arrested for disciplining children and smarting off to attendant. jailed for 3 months before pledaing guilty*



Patriot Act Used In Drug Case Published on 03-27-2008


Rush Limbaugh investigated for withdrawing money from bank


More proof that Patriot act used in mostly drug cases:
[youtube]HSXMW2FMC7A[/youtube]


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 9, 2010)

^^^^Exactly!!!! 1st off I really wish a few would quit fighting with people cuz they are not as super smart as some perceive themselves to be...you just think differently...cant we all just get a bong?

There have been several links, C&P's and the youtube video that clearly show how the patriot act is being used to take away the Constitutional rights of citizens...because it is not a novel thought is irrelevant to the point of argument...passive argument.





CrackerJax said:


> I didn't ignore it, but you haven't answered it either.
> 
> My premise is that LAW abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act.
> 
> ...


So as long as you do not say anything "Bad"...or worship the "right" fable...don't protest peacefully (or otherwise)...and choose a different career path than journalism...oh yeah...who needs the 1st Amendment

As long as you do not own a gun...bye-bye 2nd

Hell I got a spare room and a yard...might as well quarter troops here!

What a horrible waste of touchy-feely liberal crap the 3rd amendment is

Hell...as long as you do not have anything to hide...being that you are a "law-abiding citizen" there is no need to slow down "justice" or risk our safety from _TERROR!_ by requiring a warrant to search your wife's pantie drawer...What's that...a knock on the door?

And we all know the 5th is just used to protect the guilty

I could go on...but most will get my point. One of the first things that smoking pot caused me to do was to question authority. The perspective seems to change, not as much as with LSD, but maybe 15 degrees off center...so when something is said that just does not add up, it is not swallowed with a coke and a smile.

Sometimes I wonder if CJ is a fed or if he just does not smoke?

ANY legislation (besides amendments) which changes our Constitution should be an outrage to ANY AND ALL PATRIOTS!!!!!

If the "Patriot" Act takes away CONSTITUTIONAL rights of a single citizen, it means that it CAN happen to YOU!!!! And it undoubtedly IS.

Do you really think that in these controversial threads that we all end up in, that we have not typed words that trigger the NSA computers to start logging info?

Just because something is hard to believe...I mean come on..us American kids stood and pledged allegiance ~1500 times before we went to high school...it is very hard to believe that this institution upon which we started our day could be corrupted, and that anything but the illusion which is created could be any closer to reality...but it IS happening right in front of our eyes...albeit slow enough as to not affect the congregation.

...I better smoke now


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 10, 2010)

Ur a bit thick ... law abiding does not mean ... ur safe if you don't jaywalk. Law abiding in this instance is, not planning terror in the United States.

unless you are making overseas calls on a regular basis overseas to hotspots or to ppl on watch lists ... ur all flailing about hysterically for no valid reason. 

Unless you just like to complain about laws enacted trying to keep u and ur families alive. 

Oops, I forgot, this is the short bus thread ... rant on needlessly then.


----------



## supertiger (Jan 10, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Ur a bit thick ...


lol.. Thanks I enjoyed that. If you want to call someone else thick you might want to start by spelling "You're" correctly rather then sounding like a 12 year old internet gamer with "Ur."


> law abiding does not mean ... ur safe if you don't jaywalk.


I know you can work on it.


Hayduke: well said


----------



## tebor (Jan 10, 2010)

> Law abiding in this instance is, not planning terror in the United States.


the data clearly shows the Patriot Act is mostly used against drug crimes.
A violation of liberty.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 10, 2010)

So Feingold is actually upset that the searches have been put under one umbrella? Not efficient enough? or too efficient perhaps... 

How about he actually works on something productive. 

He doesn't argue that the searches shouldn't have happened. It a procedural point only ...


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 10, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Do you really think that in these controversial threads that we all end up in, that we have not typed words that trigger the NSA computers to start logging info?


their computers dont miss shit!
they probably started that on page one. my cousin's ol man does that for a living, he looks into phone calls and his buddies do the internet thing. (of course he wont tell me shit though)

anyways i agree with whole post and think we should _try _and debate this rather then argue. 
Wheres ricky at!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 10, 2010)

Conspiracy minded ppl cannot be debated. they don't process information correctly enough to have an intelligent debate.

this thread is proof enough of that

BIG letters in *BOLD* are not debating tools.

In the end, they just want to be heard. It's a lonely hearts club.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 10, 2010)

liberty > security, all fucking day


ill keep my OWN family alive myself thank you very much


----------



## Keenly (Jan 10, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Conspiracy minded ppl cannot be debated. they don't process information correctly enough to have an intelligent debate.













it was proven to you that the patriot act was being used against people who do not qualify as "terrorists" yet you completely ignored it, and then say WE dont listen to evidence?


maybe go troll some where else? its obvious you have no intention to debate, all you want to do is fling insults and "throw a wrench in the works" you dont even listen to the things we say yet you expect us to take anything you say seriously when you close your mind to the other side?


if thats not delusional, than im the ruler of zamoonda


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 10, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> So Feingold is actually upset that the searches have been put under one umbrella? Not efficient enough? or too efficient perhaps...
> 
> How about he actually works on something productive.
> 
> He doesn't argue that the searches shouldn't have happened. It a procedural point only ...


I think defending the US Constitution is his #1 job, and I applaud him.

If the information was obtained illegally...the searches should not have happened!



CrackerJax said:


> BIG letters in *BOLD* are not debating tools.


But name calling is?...


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 10, 2010)

I'll put my politeness on this thread against the OP's .... _*ANYDAY.*_


----------



## Keenly (Jan 11, 2010)

being polite, which you arent, has nothing to do with the topic, and frankly your not polite at all

shut your ears, close your eyes and open your mouth, its the cracker way


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 11, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> I think defending the US Constitution is his #1 job, and I applaud him.
> 
> If the information was obtained illegally...the searches should not have happened!
> 
> ...


So you think he was defending the constitution there?  uhhh, no.

He was scoring political points.... but he didn't.

In the end it was a procedural matter he was contending, not the issue.

Feingold has a terrible reputation. I wouldn't put much stock in any of his public efforts.


----------



## Katatawnic (Jan 11, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> [youtube]hnzHtm1jhL4[/youtube]


[youtube]pgqxYylnii0[/youtube]



Keenly said:


> liberty > security, all fucking day
> 
> ill keep my OWN family alive myself thank you very much


I wonder how many 9/11 victims thought the same way.



Keenly said:


> its obvious you have no intention to debate, all you want to do is fling insults and "throw a wrench in the works" you dont even listen to the things we say yet you expect us to take anything you say seriously when you close your mind to the other side?


I see this constantly, from both sides of the debate, no matter the debate. This one included.  The role of the debater is to prove one's point of view, not to be persuaded by those of the opposing side. It's the audience that is supposed to walk away with more food for thought, not those performing the debate.


----------



## tebor (Jan 11, 2010)

> I wonder how many 9/11 victims thought the same way.


"Security without liberty is called prison. -Ben Franklin

"They who would give up liberty for security, deserve neither liberty or security." -Ben franklin

It was interventionist foreign policy that created the *BLOWBACK*.
Read Imperial Hubris and Through our Enemy's eyes written by Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA's Bin Laden Issue Station and the Bin Laden tracking unit at the Counter-terrorism Center.

It's very clear the reasons that terrorism happens, and war in the middle east will only increase terrorism.
911 could have been easily prevented by sticking to our founding fathers principals.

If 911 wasn't an inside job, then maybe the Muslims were intentionally provoked until they attacked, just like the Japanese and Pearl Harbor(this is well documented).


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 11, 2010)

You can't HAVE liberty without security. 

If you can't get that one ... U need some more schooling. 

Now back to UTube University.


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 11, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> You can't HAVE liberty without security.
> 
> If you can't get that one ... U need some more schooling.
> 
> Now back to UTube University.


It really would be nice if you would not have a personal jab in every post.

Evidently you fall on a different end of the "Liberty" spectrum. You do not mind giving up a portion of liberty for a perceived increase in security.

The part that you at least pretend to not understand, and what I am sure Ben Franklin meant when he said it was that giving up ANY liberty for an increase of security is unacceptable. Ideally the two would be inseparable, however some (The Founders and myself) would prefer Liberty to security...and therefore the (perceived) loss of security would be better than the slippery slope to tyranny!

Hence...Give me liberty or give me death!...Don't Tread on Me!...United We Stand...


----------



## tebor (Jan 11, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> You can't HAVE liberty without security.
> 
> If you can't get that one ... U need some more schooling.
> 
> Now back to UTube University.


Nice one liners,
Reminds me of a bad 80's comedy.


please explain why you can't have liberty without security.
and Please explain the reason that your insightful one liner is accurate, but Ben Franklins is wrong.

And please, no condescending remark along the lines of "if you dont understand , I cant help you"
as this would be avoiding the conversation.


please elaborate.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 11, 2010)

explain to me how we had liberty from 1776 until 2001? (also arguable that liberty ended in 1913)

but how exactly did we accomplish the impossible?


----------



## tebor (Jan 11, 2010)

Sorry keenly,
don't expect an explanation from Emilio Estevez.
Just derogatory one liners with no thought behind them.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 11, 2010)

dont forget the insults, cant forget those


----------



## tebor (Jan 12, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> You can't HAVE liberty without security.
> 
> If you can't get that one ... U need some more schooling.
> 
> Now back to UTube University.


The first line in the quote is a blanket statement that has no relevance to the discussion.
You can't have dictatorship w/o security.
you can't have monarchy without security.
you can't have national socialism without security.
you can't have communism without security

But in the spirit of true liberty, each man provides his own security.
to think otherwise is to support welfare state ideology where the gov provides everything for you.

how is this relevant to 911? 
the founding fathers never would have allowed this interventionist foreign policy, which is the direct cause of terrorism.
We failed as protectors of liberty by allowing our gov. to become this out of control.


On the 2nd line of the quote. Schooling offers nothing that a library card can't provide.

On the 3rd and final line of the quote. This is an insult and deserves no response.


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 12, 2010)

god i love this thread


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 12, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> It really would be nice if you would not have a personal jab in every post.
> 
> Evidently you fall on a different end of the "Liberty" spectrum. You do not mind giving up a portion of liberty for a perceived increase in security.
> 
> ...


It wasn't personal, it was generic. see the difference.

if you don't ... then you need more schooling. See that would be personal if you couldn't see the difference.  So, do you need more schooling or do you get it?

I believe in keeping the USA strong in defense. Our defenses were compromised on 9/11, and civilians were butchered as they worked in NYC. Ppl taking what was supposed to be routine flights all lost their lives. 

Now some of you I already know, think WE did these things. You need to step out of the room. Ur nuts....

The rest of you ... The best offense is a good defense. yet, most of you seem to think two things predominantly.
1.) Liberty can be maintained without security surrounding that liberty. This is false, a deadly false.
2.) That any perceived reduction in your personal liberties no matter how arcane (Patriot Act which affects very few civilians), is too much to ask.

Since you get the first point wrong, I understand how you get to point 2.

But ur wrong. 

This is a selfish body of citizens in the USA right now. It was not always so.

We have a running war going on with an organization which keeps proving it is adroit at accomplishing their goals. If not for Bush getting them into Iraq and decimating their top tier structures, who knows where they would be today? 

Ur liberties will be very short lived without enough security to protect you from the barbarians at the door.

You want what you want. But Al Queda has its own wants. They don't care about ur liberties, not at all.


----------



## llltimelll (Jan 12, 2010)

dont have time to read 250 pages righ now....jus wanna make sure the movie zietgiest has been mentioned relating to 911 conspiracy....??


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 12, 2010)

i've been away a few days, ... anyone win yet?


----------



## tebor (Jan 12, 2010)

Still tied 0-0

but it is very interesting


----------



## tebor (Jan 12, 2010)

But the root cause of 911 was interventionist foreign policy.
Source-the terrorists themselves and the CIA
Will more interventionist foreign policy result in more terrorism?
or would removing all military from muslim nations end their hatred and anger toward us? Which would in turn offer both security and liberty.


just some ideas


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 12, 2010)

I am not one bit afraid of Al Qaeda or all the "Terrorists" in the world. I am twice as likely to be hit by lightning.

No matter how good our military/government regulations/security forces there will always be people who are able to get through to do us harm. Remove the USA from *their* countries and you will most likely see an end to it all


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 13, 2010)

SICC";3648513]god i love this thread [/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]Thank you ... thank you very much.[/COLOR][/SIZE]:bigjoint:
[quote="llltimelll said:


> dont have time to read 250 pages righ now....jus wanna make sure the movie zietgiest has been mentioned relating to 911 conspiracy....??


Yes it has ... thanks for asking.



NoDrama said:


> I am not one bit afraid of Al Qaeda or all the "Terrorists" in the world. I am twice as likely to be hit by lightning.
> 
> No matter how good our military/government regulations/security forces there will always be people who are able to get through to do us harm. Remove the USA from *their* countries and you will most likely see an end to it all


Here here! ... I'll take my chances with my freedoms intact ... how would all those idiots that support the war criminals like it if all the countries that the us has bases in but bases in their back yard.

Now ... on to the 911 news ...
http://dprogram.net/2010/01/10/german-business-journal-questions-911-we-do-not-believe-you/http://dprogram.net/2010/01/10/german-business-journal-questions-911-we-do-not-believe-you/*[URL="http://dprogram.net/2010/01/10/german-business-journal-questions-911-we-do-not-believe-you/"]German Business Journal Questions 9/11- We do not believe you!*[/url]
The magazine states, that it is not only serious politicians who do not want to believe the official version any more , but also, there are also thousands of scientists, who question 9/11?.

Jesse Ventura Walks Off The Opie & Anthony Show!
The interviewer was a first class asshole ... 

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9394http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=93949/11 Survivor speaks to WeAreChange New Jersey
The survivor is really hard to hear at times because of the background noise and he doesn't speak as loud as the interviewer ... so bare that in mind. Video is 7 minutes ... he talks about hearing the explosions fall below the floors where the plane hit. He believes the buildings were brought down. More from WAC ...
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9090http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9090We Are Change: Truth behind 9/11, New World Order & the Fed

http://www.bushstole04.com/http://www.bushstole04.com/[URL="http://www.bushstole04.com/"]9/11 Truth: the Challenge to the Peace Movement [1/4][/url]
MUST WATCH 36 MINUTE VIDEO
On September 13, 2009, Dr. Graeme MacQueen presented a speech titled, 9/11 Truth: the Challenge to the Peace Movement, at the conference, "We Demand Transparency! For Peace, Truth, and a New Economics. 
This is a very cogent 36 minute talk by Mr. MacQueen, a longtime peace activist in Canada. Although a university professor teaching courses in war, he too initially was deceived by the official 9/11 conspiracy. He explains the reason for his initial failure to see the obvious to the simple fact that he failed to watch mainstream media reporting of this incident on September 11 and the next day. He talks about the numerous accounts on these first two days by the mainstream media that clearly did not support the 9/11 official conspiracy theory.


http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9374http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9374[URL="http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9374"]LT. Col Anthony Shaffer on Alex Jones: and DIA Prior Knowledge of 9/11
[/url]
More hard evidence that 911 was indeed an inside job.
Part Two


Part Three


http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9355http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9355[URL="http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9355"]Jesse Ventura SCARES OFF Fox News Anchor with the Truth!
[/url]
Notice how the faux whores try to divert the issues ... as they were trained to do.


Here is an MP3 file ... 

http://corbettreport.com/mp3/episode045_ptech_and_the_911_software.mp3http://corbettreport.com/mp3/episode045_ptech_and_the_911_software.mp3[URL="http://corbettreport.com/mp3/episode045_ptech_and_the_911_software.mp3"]Listen to Indira Singh Talk about Direct Connection between P-Tech and 9-11 being an inside job
[/url]
Listen to Indira Singh Talk about Direct Connection between P-Tech and 9-11 being an inside job.
In early 2002, Manhattan risk architect Indira Singh was innocently helping JP Morgan Chase find a reputable software company that could help them update their security needs for a post-911 world, when she accidentally discovered that an alleged Saudi terrorist named Yassin Al-Kadi was running a tiny software company out of Quincy, MA, called PTech.
The most shocking part of Singh's discovery was PTech's unbelievable client roster, which included:
The FAA, the USAF, the CIA, FBI, DoJ, Dept of Energy, Customs, Enron, NATO, the Secret Service, and even the White House.


http://www.bushstole04.com/911/911_wbz.htmhttp://www.bushstole04.com/911/911_wbz.htm[URL="http://www.bushstole04.com/911/911_wbz.htm"]Why is WBZ covering up critical 9-11 evidence?
[/url]
PTech investigation proves too hot to handle, for some at WBZ
Former I-Team reporter Joe Bergantino was set in 2002 to expose a major 9-11 bomb shell, until WBZ management got a call from the government
August 23, 2009


http://www.bushstole04.com/911/ashkenazi_911.htmhttp://www.bushstole04.com/911/ashkenazi_911.htm[URL="http://www.bushstole04.com/911/ashkenazi_911.htm"]Who are the Ashkenazis: The Media Trend of Omitting Motive for 1993 & 9/11 Attacks
[/url]
Remember, the only persons arrested on 9/11 were a surveillance team comprised of five Mossad agents posing as a moving company (the dancing Israelis) and had set-up to film the destruction of the towers prior to the attacks from their van, whereupon returning to Israel several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after being expelled from the US.
"The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ZlAiVwZ1c&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ZlAiVwZ1c&feature=player_embedded[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ZlAiVwZ1c&feature=player_embedded"]Video: David Chandler examines evidence of cutter charges in WTC 1 collapse
[/url]
[youtube]T1ZlAiVwZ1c&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Updated video ...
Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center

[youtube]O36ReZixfiY&annotation_id=annotation_55967&feature=iv[/youtube]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKVLA6Lcechttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKVLA6Lcec[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKVLA6Lcec"]Santa Claus Brings 9/11 Truth to Japan
[/url]
[youtube]2iKVLA6Lcec[/youtube]
Santa Claus comes early to Japan this year and he's armed with 9/11 Truth, including Japanese translations of Harrit et al's paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust"


I don't know what happen up top with the quotes ... some kind of site malfunction I guess ... but the rest came out ok ... so there you have it ... the 911 news ... 



*
*


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 13, 2010)

do you win now?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 13, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> do you win now?


Game, set, match


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 13, 2010)

I dont get it, what side are you on FDD? lol

do you believe it was an inside job or not?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 13, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3653358]I dont get it, what side are you on FDD? lol

do you believe it was an inside job or not?[/QUOTE]

and for the 1000th time, "i do NOT take sides".


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 13, 2010)

oh, 1,000 apologies 

Im the same way, im open on both sides, but i lean more towards the side of it being an inside job, i mean why is it so crazy to think it could have happened, there is so much shit that has been covered up, then brought out into the open but people swear that shit like this is unthinkable or would never happen, but i guess that's what happens when you stay in side the materialistic bubbles they keep us in


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 13, 2010)

He just fans the flames when things die down...


----------



## Keenly (Jan 13, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> He just fans the flames when things die down...


this fire is a roaring and will be for decades


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 13, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> It wasn't personal, it was generic. see the difference.
> 
> if you don't ... then you need more schooling. See that would be personal if you couldn't see the difference.  So, do you need more schooling or do you get it?


Dude your now typical response of "YOU need more Schooling (usually "skool") is always right after someone says something you don't like and is usually a response to that post...yes you don't usually say their name...it's not like you come on every few days...you are a frequent flier in all but talking about growing bud!!!!!

A generic "you people are all idiots" in the jeebus section would likely get you a time out. 

Even if it was generic...knock it off!(please) Quit being a keyboard punk!

And by the crap that I deleted from your quote...oh never mind


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 13, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> He just fans the flames when things die down...


as a mod, it is my job to "keep the site active".


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 14, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> I am not one bit afraid of Al Qaeda or all the "Terrorists" in the world. I am twice as likely to be hit by lightning.
> 
> No matter how good our military/government regulations/security forces there will always be people who are able to get through to do us harm. Remove the USA from *their* countries and you will most likely see an end to it all


That's nice, just keep thinking bout urself only. Those folks on those planes and NYC don't really count ... you don't know them.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 14, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> That's nice, just keep thinking bout urself only. Those folks on those planes and NYC don't really count ... you don't know them.


spare us your hypocrisy ... those folks who had relatives on those planes and in those buildings what a real investigation ... but they don't count in your book ... and you don't know them.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 14, 2010)

http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=1&id=17186Ahmadinejad calls 9/11 attacks suspicious
Speaking in the southwestern city of Ahvaz, Ahmadinejad asserted that many experts believed that the 9/11 attacks were a US-Israeli plot to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.

They want to dominate the Middle East with their military presence and all their planning is aimed to achieve this goal. Human rights, fighting nuclear weapons and fighting terrorism is all a big lie, he said.

Even the event of 11 September is a suspicious incident, the president added.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."
Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.
They are so afraid the truth will be generally known that they are further trashing the constitution. ...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924David Ray Griffin's new essay: Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners 
Although this essay has focused on details, often minute, in merely one aspect of the official account of 9/11, the implications are enormous. Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible. With regard to the war in Afghanistan in particular, Michel Chossudovsky has recently emphasized the fact that NATOs decision to support this US-led war was based on a briefing by Frank Taylor of the US State Department, in which he provided what was called conclusive evidence of al-Qaedas responsibility for the attacks.121 Although the contents of Taylors briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

http://www.bushstole04.com/fakewar/big_lie.htmFour Mossad Linked Suspects Lived In WTC Prior to 9/11
I was contacted by an individual who led me to this information about the art students living in WTC Tower 1 before 9/11. In fact, in May of 2000, they were living on the 91st floor where they were doing construction and sleeping in tents. They did have construction passes. I do believe that ACE Elevator and Securicom, as well as Kroll Associates should be focused on, however, this is important information that has never been confirmed, until now.

http://www.bushstole04.com/fakewar/bomber_terror.htmThe Christmas Bomber and the Fraudulent War on Terror
The "attempted" bombing on Christmas Day was designed to garner support for President Obama's actions in support of the Zionist fraud known as the "War on Terror".

This was another presentation of the 911 news ... stay tune for the next 911 news update.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 14, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> spare us your hypocrisy ... those folks who had relatives on those planes and in those buildings what a real investigation ... but they don't count in your book ... and you don't know them.


owned hard...


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 14, 2010)

Keenly said:


> owned hard...


fuck yeah, he misspelled "want". lol  
kinda the "key" word of the sentence. funny stuff.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 14, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> fuck yeah, he misspelled "want". lol
> kinda the "key" word of the sentence. funny stuff.


well i was referring to the part where crackerjacks statement did not make any sense but if you want to point out peoples mistakes thats cool too


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 14, 2010)

Keenly said:


> well i was referring to the part where crackerjacks statement did not make any sense but if you want to point out peoples mistakes thats cool too


i was referring to the part where GR wants to be taken serious, yet can't take the time to proof read a simple sentence. it really says A LOT. i don't expect you to get it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 14, 2010)

Keenly said:


> well i was referring to the part where crackerjacks statement did not make any sense but if you want to point out peoples mistakes thats cool too


am i the only one who sees the irony in this post?


----------



## Keenly (Jan 14, 2010)

there is in fact a difference between a false statement and a mistake


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 15, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i was referring to the part where GR wants to be taken serious, yet can't take the time to proof read a simple sentence. it really says A LOT. i don't expect you to get it.


LoL. Your i should be I, you can't be serious. Just playing fdd, was actually looking for some good palin interviews a bit ago and It's one thing to mess up some spelling but if you JOB is to talk on a show you can't go making up words Funny shit it was!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 15, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> am i the only one who sees the irony in this post?


Everyone but Keenly ... 


Calling for a new investigation is naive. It's been done, and the ppl already know who did it. 9/11 has already been claimed by Al Queda. 

Despite GR's naivete, quoting Iran's leader as true shows GR hasn't a clue to what's really going on.

Keep skating on the ice pond, but the waters run much deeper ... but you can't seem to get there. I'm not surprised. Easily fooled.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 15, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Everyone but Keenly ...
> 
> 
> Calling for a new investigation is naive. It's been done, and the ppl already know who did it. 9/11 has already been claimed by Al Queda.
> ...


Projecting again I see ... nothing new here folks ... move along ...


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 15, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i was referring to the part where GR wants to be taken serious, yet can't take the time to proof read a simple sentence. it really says A LOT. i don't expect you to get it.


Oh like you have never made a spelling error ... don't even go there ... you will lose ... it in no way takes away the creditability of the information provided ... once again you grasps for straw ... how's that working out for ya?


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 15, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i was referring to the part where GR wants to be taken serious, yet can't take the time to proof read a simple sentence. it really says A LOT. i don't expect you to get it.



So any time your post is not grammatically correct we are to assume that you are not trying to be serious? So people who are bad spellers are only kidding us? When Vice President Quail misspelled potato was he just joking? I can probably find any periodical right now that has at least 1 misspelling in it that someone didn't catch, must mean they don't really mean it eh? FDD sometimes I just don't get you, your using the same pattern of attack on anyone and anything you can in an attempt to discredit. Its pathetic, really.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 15, 2010)

The truthers have been disproven over and over again..... so I'm done in that area. 

Now, it's mostly a laugh fest ... like the rest of the nation at this point.

The isolation is increasing.....


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 15, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> The truthers have been disproven over and over again..... so I'm done in that area.
> 
> Now, it's mostly a laugh fest ... like the rest of the nation at this point.
> 
> The isolation is increasing.....


You haven't done anything, cracka lol. 

I'm surprised you're not religious with your illogical way of thinking in this subject 



> *Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation*
> 
> By fredface
> 
> ...


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 15, 2010)




----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 16, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> So any time your post is not grammatically correct we are to assume that you are not trying to be serious? So people who are bad spellers are only kidding us? When Vice President Quail misspelled potato was he just joking? I can probably find any periodical right now that has at least 1 misspelling in it that someone didn't catch, must mean they don't really mean it eh? FDD sometimes I just don't get you, your using the same pattern of attack on anyone and anything you can in an attempt to discredit. Its pathetic, really.



this thread is pathetic.


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 16, 2010)

This thread is awesome.

The same old routine worldwide:

Truther: This looks odd

Non-Truther: You are a nut-job.

Truther: Something doesn't add up

Non-Truther: Maybe the aliens did it you crackpot

Truther: Open your eyes, there's too many suspect coincidences.

Non-Truther: You are a gullible fool. Everything is as it is told on the news and by our leaders.

Truther: But that's the point. It is a massive conspiracy involving the world's elite and their pawns.

Non-Truther: Oh no! Maybe the reptilian Pope will harvest my organs and absorb my prana through subdermal osmosis.

Truther: Why do you attack me? Is it because you are scared to accept the truth and the consequences if you think for yourself? Think of the victims of 9/11, we owe them and their families a resolution to all the many questionable incidents that happened prior to, on, and after that horrible day.

Non-Truther: How dare you insinuate the families of the 9/11 victims and survivors are ignorant! That is despicable and an example of why I attack you, because you sully the honourable memories of those who died and all who were affected on 9/11. You should die.

Truther: I question the official story for all our sakes, so we might be wiser and our children more aware of the machinations of those who abuse their power, and seek to dominate the world through a New World Order.

Non-Truther: You're a fucking idiot. If there was anything more to investigate, it would be all over the news, which it's not, and something would have been done about it by now.

Truther: That's what I'm saying. The mass media are controlled by the very elite who perpetrate these crimes.

Non-Truther: Stop trying to be special. You're looking for a reason to feel clever and a common enemy to give your life a purpose.

Truther: I seek the truth because we have been lied to and manipulated! These criminals should be made to pay for their crimes. Please have a look at what I'm trying to tell you. We are being lied to, the world is very different than what we are led to believe. Please, open your eyes, for your own sake, and the sake of the minds of our children.

Non-Truther: I will not give your words or thoughts any creedence whatsoever, I do not need your twisted lies and mistruths to influence what I already know: You are a fuckhead conspiratard. All your claims have been debunked, I knew you were wrong, now fuck off.

And it goes on and on, one concerned about a wrong, one concerned about being wrong, one defiant of implied authoratitive righteousness, one submissive and accepting of official doctrine. One infuriated at an injustice, the other impuned by authority. 

The only thing both warring parties have in common is they both think that the other is ignorant.

There are cases for both sides: The truthers do have legitimate claims and their concerns are warranted. The Non-Truthers have legitimate and officialised rebuttals to quell those claims. 

It is easy to see when a Non-Truther is losing the argument, as the 'kookspiritard' insults increase.
It is also easy to see when a Truther is losing the argument, as the rabbit hole deepens and the conspiracy seems to stretch farther and farther back and more conspirators appear, to strengthen the argument.

It's like a wonderful dance, the plea for reason versus the obstinate refusal of ignorance. Both armies absolute and contrite in their cause, and more than willing to abandon reason so as not to lose the fight, or to lose influence on the undecided.

The wonderful and witty repartee and carefully constructed counter criticisms as attempted civility disintegrates, and escalates to all-out defense and defiance is truly a joy to witness.


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 16, 2010)

Look at the views of all the political threads on the first 10 pages. This one has twice the views of any, next inline C.J's iran thread, followed by a pro-palin thread, then bruce lee.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 16, 2010)

Miss MeanWeed said:


> This thread is awesome.
> 
> The same old routine worldwide:
> 
> ...


Good post ... thanks for putting it up.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 17, 2010)

Yah, except that there's already been a massive investigation ... 

Fail.

it's called common sense..... and yet ... so few have it.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 17, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Yah, except that there's already been a massive investigation ...
> 
> Fail.
> 
> it's called common sense..... and yet ... so few have it.



It's not our fault you don't have any common sense ... nor do we care. The truth will be generally known, no matter how many off topic, non rebuttal, no credible dispute with data you post that FACT will not change. Just as your attempts to discredit continues to fail. You are of very little consequence as far as getting the truth out in general.
Aw ... too bad ... so sad

Still waiting for you to throw that $1000 check in our faces ...


----------



## Keenly (Jan 17, 2010)

lol, "massive" investigation


we have told you time and time again that more money was granted into bill clintons blowjob investigation than the murder of hundreds of americans..

i guess this is acceptable in your eyes?


you can stop trying now CJ, were never going to stop... no matter how much you beg and plead and cry we will never quit


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 17, 2010)

Keenly said:


> lol, "massive" investigation
> 
> 
> we have told you time and time again that more money was granted into bill clintons blowjob investigation than the murder of hundreds of americans..
> ...


it was thousands. you should know this.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 17, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it was thousands. you should know this.


i do know this, 3 thousand plus thousands more from health problems caused by the dust in the air


was a little out of it this morning


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 17, 2010)

Keenly said:


> i do know this, 3 thousand plus thousands more from health problems caused by the dust in the air
> 
> 
> was a little out of it this morning


between the typos and the misspellings, i got this thing nailed.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 18, 2010)

I know you don't care GR ... you don't possess common sense. I'm posting for those a bit more on the ball.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 18, 2010)

[youtube]UnLNXquIBVs[/youtube]


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 18, 2010)

Keenly said:


> l were never going to stop... no matter how much you beg and plead and cry we will never quit



What if you were proved wrong, would you stop then?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 18, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> What if you were proved wrong, would you stop then?


they will NEVER be proven wrong. it is NOT on the agenda.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 18, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> What if you were proved wrong, would you stop then?


its been tried time and time again

but the fact still remains, a lot of shit went down on 9/11 that was equivalent to covering up a crime scene, a lot of things that didnt make sense (according to the official story) and a lot of things that were too "good" to be true, I.E. the passport

it would be stupid to believe in a conspiracy of 9/11 when there was only 1 anomaly, however there were literally thousands of things that not only defied common sense, but just defied general logic, as well as crime scene investigative knowledge


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 18, 2010)

Keenly said:


> its been tried time and time again
> 
> but the fact still remains, a lot of shit went down on 9/11 that was equivalent to covering up a crime scene, a lot of things that didnt make sense (according to the official story) and a lot of things that were too "good" to be true, I.E. the passport
> 
> it would be stupid to believe in a conspiracy of 9/11 when there was only 1 anomaly, however there were literally thousands of things that not only defied common sense, but just defied general logic, as well as crime scene investigative knowledge






so ... that would be a "NO".


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 18, 2010)

You didn't answer my question if you were proven wrong would you stop? its a simple question.


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 18, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> You didn't answer my question if you were proven wrong would you stop? its a simple question.


You can't PROVE him wrong, maybe on some little thing you can, but as far as the big picture you can't prove anything. If the government cannot prove it without their statements being full of holes and erroneous data then neither can yours, because that's the only place you can find data supporting your viewpoint. Oh and popular mechanics, mustn't forget them. BTW Pop Mech were't we supposed to have flying cars and saucers for transportation decades ago like you said we would? and what about all that free power your magazine is always talking about happening. IMO Pop Mech is a dreamers magazine where they come up with some of the craziest shit ever.


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 18, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> I know you don't care GR ... you don't possess common sense. I'm posting for those a bit more on the ball.


You don't know anything ...you have proven that time and time again. You post because you can't stand the FACT that people look at this thread. ... and we all know what your definition of "bit more on the ball" is ... which is of little consequence to those that want a real investigation.

It's very amusing watching you and FFD trying to convince people not to read this thread, and that we are the ones that are crazy ... most amusing.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 18, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> You don't know anything ...you have proven that time and time again. You post because you can't stand the FACT that people look at this thread. ... and we all know what your definition of "bit more on the ball" is ... which is of little consequence to those that want a real investigation.
> 
> It's very amusing watching you and FFD trying to convince people not to read this thread, and that we are the ones that are crazy ... most amusing.


what kind of idiot would BUMP a thread to get people NOT to look at it.


who is stupid? fucking genius here has it all figured out.


----------



## Big P (Jan 18, 2010)

looks like the late Ted kennedy may be replaced by a Republican


imagine if you told Mr. Kennedy that a few months ago he would have laughed it off as a rediculess joke











TOMORROW IS THE DAY!
_POLL: BROWN UP BY 9_​ 


dont get too worried socialists, im sure obama and the crew got thier sheep being bused in from other states to supress the peoples of Mass's true will



and hey if he wins they say they will stall seating him so they can pass the health-scare the people are trying to stop

and if they are stupid enough to try that, they will be taken to court

and they will be forced to seat him

and then they might try reconciliation to get the vote passed with just 51 votes instead of 60


if they try that it will end the democartic party for the forseeable future, and the growing indepent majority will repeal these healthcare bills in due time anyway



*KENNEDY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HER NAME!** 

**Mass. vote could threaten health reform...** 

**CNN: Obama advisers believe Martha Coakley will lose...** 

**Dem Congressman predicts 'very slow count'... *

*Obama heckled at rally...** 

**'Race is in a spinout'...*

*MSNBC Host: I'd Cheat To Keep Brown From Winning...** 

**Jim Cramer: Brown Win Tuesday Causes Huge Stock Rally... *


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 18, 2010)

They will never admit to being wrong. The entire point of the delusion is to form a superiority in their own minds. The more ppl disagree with them, the more attention they receive and this reinforces the superiority.

But the delusion actually stems from insecurity. An insecurity the 9/11 truther authors tap into and manipulate.


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 19, 2010)

I actually enjoy the 'No-Plane' theory the most. Not because I do believe it, and not because I don't, but because it makes for gripping drama. Watching 'September Clues' for me rates as on par with the first viewing of Sixth Sense, or Scream, or some other thriller with a clever twist. With just the slightest suspension of disbelief, the no-plane theory becomes a fascinating tale that draws you in and has you thinking " Naaaaawwwww...no way.....hmmmm.....but what if?...."


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 19, 2010)

In your "no-plane" which one are you talking about or ones?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 19, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> what kind of idiot would BUMP a thread to get people NOT to look at it.
> who is stupid? fucking genius here has it all figured out.


That's for you to answer ... you are the one that keeps doing it, trying to ridicule people for posting or reading this thread. Yeah so who is stupid? 



Big P said:


> looks like the late Ted kennedy may be replaced by a Republican
> imagine if you told Mr. Kennedy that a few months ago he would have laughed it off as a rediculess joke


Some people just want to be asleep at the wheel. It makes no difference, both parties have the same handlers ... you are foolish to think one is better than the other. 



CrackerJax said:


> They will never admit to being wrong. The entire point of the delusion is to form a superiority in their own minds. The more ppl disagree with them, the more attention they receive and this reinforces the superiority.
> 
> But the delusion actually stems from insecurity. An insecurity the 9/11 truther authors tap into and manipulate.


Self projecting again I see ... nothing new here folks ... move along ... move along ...


----------



## Big P (Jan 19, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Some people just want to be asleep at the wheel. It makes no difference, both parties have the same handlers ... you are foolish to think one is better than the other.


 
this is a complete lie, 


the democratic party is stealing our money, and bankruping our country and making us less safe. if you dont think we are better off with a balance so no one party can run us into the ground then you are the fool


Grow Rebel do you take any medication besides ganja?


might wanna look into some bipolar medication if your not already on some,

you seem border line schizophrenic, i have one in the family,



there are people pulling the strings trying to get you, i know man, I know. dont live in fear man


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 19, 2010)

Big P said:


> this is a complete lie,


Yawn ... like I said ... some people are completely at the wheel ... and now on to the 911 news ...
This is a documentary doing what the government refuses to do ... investigate the evidence of 911 ... they invite anyone to give a counter point to their evidence, but I doubt they will get any serious response. Check it out when you can ...
Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.1of8

[youtube]n31jTJjwgOg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.2of8

[youtube]z7W6JGtWVl0&feature=related[/youtube]

Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.3of8

[youtube]9NftfMNyqhM&feature=related[/youtube]

Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.4of8

[youtube]93O_VDWSgEw&feature=related[/youtube]

Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.5of8

[youtube]21V7aDI_nEQ&feature=related[/youtube]

Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.6of8

[youtube]0MxOiIx7oMc&feature=related[/youtube]

Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.7of8

[youtube]oEFpNHbqUek&feature=related[/youtube]

Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.8of8

[youtube]EyX0V9br4Bc&feature=related[/youtube]
 


I'm am quite confident that no one on this forum will be able to give a serious dispute to the evidence presented in the documentary.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 19, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> That's for you to answer ... you are the one that keeps doing it, trying to ridicule people for posting or reading this thread. Yeah so who is stupid?
> 
> 
> Some people just want to be asleep at the wheel. It makes no difference, both parties have the same handlers ... you are foolish to think one is better than the other.
> ...



actually it's you ridiculing us for posting. 

we found it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 19, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Yawn ... like I said ... some people are completely at the wheel ... and now on to the 911 news ...
> This is a documentary doing what the government refuses to do ... investigate the evidence of 911 ... they invite anyone to give a counter point to their evidence, but I doubt they will get any serious response. Check it out when you can ...
> Anatomy of the 911 Cover Up-Pt.1of8
> 
> ...








so NOW you get your investigation?

Buwahahahhahahahhaha


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 20, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> In your "no-plane" which one are you talking about or ones?


The No-Plane theory requites that NO planes hit ANY buildings at all.

No-Planers state that no Boeings hit either of the twin towers and that planes were edited into live footage 'on the fly' .

These claims seem to have originated from the seeds sown by original concerns at a seeming lack of evidence showing a plane hitting the Pentagon, or the lack of detritus from planes in fields.


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

Grow rebel say I wanted to join your little 9/11 inside job club

you have been at this thread for 2 years straight, thats an amazing feat

what progess have you made with the cause so far in all your hard work over these past 2 years 

you have been doing the heavy lifting on for us

whats the status?


its been a long 8 1/2 years for you hasnt it


but i think your probably right 

its impossible for these savages to have had any hand in it, its just not like the societly overthere to overkill 






*Saudi girl, 13, sentenced to 90 lashes after she took a mobile phone to school*


By Mike Theodoulou




Last updated at 1:25 PM on 20th January 2010

Comments (23) 
Add to My Stories 
A 13-year-old girl has been sentenced to 90 lashes and two months' prison in Saudi Arabia after she took a mobile phone to school.

A court ordered the girl to be flogged in front of her classmates following an assault on the school principal, according to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan.

After the assault she was discovered to have concealed a mobile phone, breaking strict Saudi regulations banning the use of camera-equipped phones in girls' schools.






Brutal: public floggings, such as in this archive picture, are a common punishment handed down by religious courts in Saudi Arabia

Al-Watan said a court in the northeastern Gulf port of Jubail had sentenced the girl to 90 lashes inside her school, followed by two months' detention.

The punishment is harsher than tha dished out to some robbers and looters.

Saudi Arabia, a leading US ally in the Middle East, is an absolute monarchy controlled by the Al-Saud ruling tribe, and lacks any legal code.





Absolute monarchy: King Abdullah, ruler of the oil-rich state, meeting Gordon Brown on a 2007 visit to Downing Street

King Abdullah has promoted some social reforms since taking the throne in 2005 but diplomats say he is held back by religious clerics and princes. 

Cinemas and music concerts are banned, while many restaurants and even some shopping centres cater to families only, especially on holidays. 

Religious police roam streets to make sure no unrelated men and women mix.

The Saudi court system is exclusively controlled Wahahbi/Salafi clerics, and bans the employment of non-Salafi citizens, especially as judges.

Saudi Arabia is the world's leading country in the use of torture-by-flogging, public beheadings and publically crucifying condemned prisoners.

The country crucified two people in 2009, including one in the capital Riyadh during President Barak Obama&#8217;s visit last April.

In September, twenty Saudi teenagers who ransacked shops and restaurants were publicly flogged. 

Newspapers reported that the teenagers received at least 30 lashes each in a public square.
Most of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks in 2001 came from Saudi Arabia.








Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244689/Saudi-girl-13--sentenced-90-lashes-took-mobile-phone-school.html#ixzz0dAF3EQy2


----------



## undertheice (Jan 20, 2010)

Big P said:


> its been a long 8 1/2 years for you hasn't it


this thread may be the longest running joke in riu history.


----------



## Wavels (Jan 20, 2010)

^^^^
lol under,

This thread is an exercise in convoluted myopia.
I love it!


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

*Myopia as metaphor*
The terms _myopia_ and _myopic_ (or the common terms _short sightedness_ or _short sighted_) have also been used metaphorically to refer to cognitive thinking and decision making that is narrow sighted or lacking in concern for wider interests or longer-term consequences.[89] It is often used to describe a decision that may be beneficial in the present but detrimental in the future, or a viewpoint that fails to consider anything outside a very narrow and limited range (see pragmatism, which tends to be myopic). Some antonyms of short sightedness are foreseeing, "forward thinking" and prophecy. Hyperopia, the biological opposite of myopia, is also used as a metaphor for those who exhibit "far-sighted" behavior; that is, over-prioritizing long-term interests at the expense of present enjoyment.[90]


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 20, 2010)

I still dont get why people post in here if they dont believe or like what he's posting, stay the fuc out then lol

the problem with this political section is that everyone who posts in it, thinks there the smatest person here

Your calling this info narrow minded, but your so stupid to think that the government couldn't do ANYTHING, or WOULDNT do ANYTHING like this 

when you want to wake up, let us know


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 20, 2010)

undertheice said:


> this thread may be the longest running joke in riu history.


Only to people like you who are too blind to see ... no problem there ... we don't need you or want you ... 




fdd2blk said:


> actually it's you ridiculing us for posting.
> 
> we found it.


How convenient of you to disregard the fact I was responding to ridicule ... but that's you MO isn't it ... 



fdd2blk said:


> so NOW you get your investigation?
> 
> Buwahahahhahahahhaha


Yawn ... simply more proof your MO is to disrupt and ridicule ... so how's that working out for ya?



Big P said:


> Grow rebel say I wanted to join your little 9/11 inside job club


Don't need ya ... don't want ya ... people like you are of little consequence to bring out the truth... 



Big P said:


> you have been at this thread for 2 years straight, thats an amazing feat


Only people like you think it's amazing to speak out against murder and war crimes ... 



Big P said:


> what progess have you made with the cause so far in all your hard work over these past 2 years


More people now believe the government story is a lie ... that progress.




Big P said:


> its impossible for these savages to have had any hand in it, its just not like the societly overthere to overkill


You are just as big a hypocrite as the government you bend over for ... the Saudi's are friends of the US ... remember?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 20, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3683454]I still dont get why people post in here if they dont believe or like what he's posting, stay the fuc out then lol

the problem with this political section is that everyone who posts in it, thinks there the smatest person here

Your calling this info narrow minded, but your so stupid to think that the government couldn't do ANYTHING, or WOULDNT do ANYTHING like this 

when you want to wake up, let us know[/QUOTE]

 I'm telling ya ... some people just can't handle the fact that people don't buy the lie and want a real investigation ... perhaps it's something they drink? Kool-aid perhaps? I doubt they will ever wake up even when it bites them in the ass ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

how's this thread working for you?


you've gotten nowhere. 


i'm not offended.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> as a mod, it is my job to "keep the site active".


your doing a *fine *job with that fdd.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> your doing a *fine *job with that fdd.


thanks.


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 20, 2010)

This same hermetically sealed community of belief can also be found amongst political ideologues, proponents of various pseudo-sciences and occult dogmas, and amongst conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are notorious for this tendency to form communities of the deluded, for in their case the opinions they hold are often so outrageously wrong that conspiracists often appear genuinely insane. The internet has been instrumental in the rise of new conspiracy theories because it provides the opportunity to form the kind of closed, circular, and mutually reinforcing groupthink which was previously available only to close knit religious communities or tightly structured political groups. This means that conspiracists should be properly considered as a species of dogmatic believer similar to members of a religious sect. 

Religious and political philosophies, however, may incorporate valid ethical and social observations, which may attract followers with different motivations, diluting the purely dogmatic elements. Consumers of pseudo-science make common cognitive mistakes which requires research to dispel; many may simply have not taken the time to know better, and may not have much at stake (those who pay thousands to psychics and faith healers are another matter). Their entertainment of nonsense may be casual and not a central feature of their personality; when the stakes are high, they go to a doctor, not a homeopath. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, are usually quite dedicated and quite vociferous in what they believe. But most importantly, conspiracists are barking mad--pure dogmatists. Examination of conspiracists will throw light on the nature and habits of purely dogmatic believers of all kinds.

Conspiracists share in common with other dogmatic believers the following traits:

*1) Epistemological Incompetence.* Conspiracists lack basic tools of comprehension concerning the way the world works. These include a poor understanding of logic, science, and human nature. They have little or no grasp of what James Flynn calls shorthand abstractions (SHA's). SHA's include the concepts of the market, percentage, natural selection, random samples, control groups, the naturalistic fallacy, the charisma effect, placebo effect, falsifiability and tautology, and the tolerance school fallacy. Some of these you may recognize by name, and I'm not going to go into a full explanation of all of them. Flynn's work is stellar. He is best known for the Flynn effect, the measured gradual rise in IQ over the last century. His conception of the SHA's is a must read; Flynn believes that the acceptance of scientific ways of thinking is responsible for the Flynn effect. You can find it here. This is where he lists and describes the SHA's and several anti-SHA's, the latter being common misperceptions leading to false conclusions. 

The important point is that these are tools needed to understand the modern world. Without them, conspiracists literally do not understand how the world works. This is the root cause of all of their other problems. The conspiracy theory not only exploits this weakness, but reinforces it. Acceptance of conspiracy theories may in the long term actually impair the ability for critical thinking. One conspiracy theory leads to another, and all seem to lead, eventually, to the moral and cognitive black hole of anti-semitism.

*2) Epistemological Relativism.* Since conspiracists do not understand the methods for reaching a correct conclusion, all conclusions are equal and based solely upon the weight of authority. In short, there is no truth, only opinion. It is a sad fact that someone can acquire a scientific or technical degree without ever fully understanding the scientific method. It is possible to take the results of science as received wisdom, and parrot it back successfully on exams, without understanding how it was derived. Dogmas are conclusions, cues to stop thinking, rather than means of arriving at conclusions. There are some that will learn science in this way, and never move beyond the dogmatic mindset.

*3) Confirmation Bias.* Conspiracists disregard arguments that refute their thesis, usually by relying on the Genetic Fallacy--the source is in on the conspiracy, and therefore cannot be trusted. There is no truth, only opinion, and only the right opinion is acceptable. The Grand Cabal "got to them", or their interests are somehow served by the conspiracy. Their motives are therefore impure, and nothing they say can be considered worthy to discredit the conspiracy theory. Since conspiracists consider all arguments to be arguments from authority, the choice is not between correct methodologies, but correct authority.

*4) Selective Bias.* Conspiracists emphasize only those snippets of fact that confirm their beliefs, and disregard or dismiss the bulk of evidence which refutes their thesis. A common practice is quote mining, where a single statement (or even a portion of a statement) is quoted out of context as evidence for the theory. When the original source objects to the interpretation of the quote, the conspiracists fall back on the Genetic Fallacy, claiming that the source has been compromised since the original statement. Conspiracy theories are therefore unfalsifiable. 

*5) Exceptionalism.* Conspiracists grant their own theories exception from logical or methodological principles that they routinely apply in the rest of their lives. Occam's Razor is a good example of an abandoned principle; it is hard to believe that a qualified engineer would not be familiar with this logical tool, yet there are many engineers amongst "Truthers", whose theories concerning the events of 9/11 multiply entities on a grand scale while the real explanation is remarkably simple.

*6) 'Gaps' Arguments.* Rather than provide a comprehensive argument, backed by evidence, conspiracists rely on a false dichotomy, attempting to argue that there are inconsistencies in the accepted explanation, and then presenting their own as the only alternative. When these gaps are filled the conspiracists pretend not to hear the new evidence, and continue to point to gaps that have in fact been filled. Since this new information contradicts their claims, it will not appear in discussions amongst the conspiracists, and will be blithely ignored when presented by someone else. This additional information is, in their mind, intended to refute what they have already decided is true and therefore obviously ideologically based and not worthy of consideration.


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 20, 2010)

*7) Theory of Agency rather than Process.* For the conspiracist, there are no coincidences. Everything happens for a reason, and that reason is always an intentional agent. Any large scale, frequent, or dramatic events must be the product of deliberate planning, and carried out by an commensurately powerful organization. If those events are negative, a vast malevolent agency or cabal is at work. Small criminal groups or sole individuals cannot be responsible. Ignorance, incompetence, poor planning, or impersonal forces cannot play a role. For those who do not understand how the world works, the question is not how, but who, a systematic misapplication of intentional explanations.

*8.) Magic.* For those who understand nothing about the world, all is magic. The agency is both supernaturally intelligent and powerful, and yet strangely inept. The cabal has virtually complete control of nearly all powerful institutions--economic, political, legal, social, criminal, and journalistic--yet somehow cannot prevent the conspiracists from uncovering their plot. They can, however, hide all the evidence, an ability which would require the cabal to command power that rivals the divine. Benjamin Franklin said that "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." The conspiracists believes that plots involving thousands can operate without detection, thanks to the near omniscience and virtual omnipotence of the conspiracy, whose members are all unswervingly loyal to the cause.

*9) Occult Knowledge.* Despite the fantastic powers of the enemy, the conspiracists have uncovered the Hidden Truth, marking them as in some way the champions of divine providence. This too is no accident; the conspiracist possesses a rare and special virtue. The conspiracist is thus cast in a heroic light, often an overcompensation for the mundane reality of their personal lives. They alone have broken through the web of illusions created by the cabal, and it is their destiny to free the world. Their Truth trumps all lesser truths, so outright and deliberate lies are acceptable. The objective is not truth (which does not actually exist unless it is theirs--relativists always make exceptions for what they believe, otherwise the relativist argument itself would collapse) but victory.

*10) Mutation, Adaptation, and Cross Breeding.* As conspiracists meet contrary evidence, they continue to invent and share counter arguments in a piecemeal fashion. Exposure to reason and evidence, rather than correcting the theory, actually forces it to adapt to become a more reason-resistant strain. In effect, criticism acts as a form of natural selection, weeding out the rational proponents and isolating the loons, while at the same time forcing the theory itself to evolve into something which cannot be falsified by any means. Many conspiracist arguments actually contradict other arguments presented by the same conspiracist, because they are pieced together from variant conspiracy theories. Since conspiracy theories rely on gaps arguments, consistency is not important, and this is why one conspiracy theory leads to another--they share common elements indiscriminately. The only thing that is important is that the real explanation be refuted so that the conspiracist alternative may be offered in its place.

*11) Evangelism.* Spreading belief in the conspiracy theory is of the utmost importance. The conspiracist believes himself to be the sworn enemy of an immensely powerful malevolent enemy, which must be defeated. Telling others what he knows will make him a less appealing target for the enemy. But in spreading the word, he also becomes the hero in a grand cause, a paladin in gleaming armor against the dragon. Converting others to his beliefs will not only lessen his cognitive dissonance (he is, after all, often told that he is crazy), but will also convince others of his heroic stature. In the eyes of converts, he will go from zero to hero in one easy step.


Although details of justification may vary amongst dogmas, these traits appear to be common to all systems of dogma. Consider Stalinism and National Socialism, both political dogmas. Both employed conspiracy theories of their own. Their biases, and general aversion to truth and the means of establishing truth, are fairly obvious. More suprising, as supposedly secular dogmas, both were notorious dabblers in the occult and wholesale distributors of pseudo-science. In their support for Lysenkoism, the Stalinists apparently thought they were in the position to legislate the laws of science. Hitler railed against "Jewish science". Fortunately for us this included nuclear physics, and led the Nazis to abandon the development of nuclear weapons. 

Some invocation of magic and the occult seems to be required to protect any dogma from empirical challenge. Freudian psychology claimed to be able to recover repressed memories which even the patient didn't know about. This eventually led to the inanity of mutiple personalities, past life regression, and tales of vast satanic conspiracies. No evidence for any of this was ever found, and the entire charade has left the cult of Freud in ruins. But at the time it was claimed that only the psychotherapist had the knowledge, and ability, to reach these hidden truths. In the aftermath of these scandals, Freudian psychology was stripped of its scientific disguise and revealed to be an occult practice.

You may have noticed memetic elements at work here. I'm not completely convinced that the memetic model is coherent. For that matter, neither is Richard Dawkins, who merely proposed the idea of memes as the extension of the idea of simple replicators into another domain. But there does seem to be some organic, evolutionary process at work here. Dogmatic systems consist largely of false and irrational beliefs. They are dogmatic precisely because they are not rationally or empirically defensible. As such, a dogmatic belief system appears to be a viral agent which bypasses rational defenses and hijacks the mind. The problem with the concept of the meme is that it is too simple; if a meme is to be considered as a viral agent, we must remember that viruses are not simple gene snippets floating in the blood stream. They are packages of genes contained within a delivery system which includes defensive and offensive adaptations. They must be able to avoid detection and elimination, and they must be able to gain entry into the cell.

By analogy, systems of dogma must, in addition to their main ideological payload, be able to slip past or destroy critical defenses, must encourage evangelism, and must at first approach be attractive enough for consideration. This is no simple meme, but a compex system of mutually reinforcing ideas. The attraction can take many forms. The dogma may offer a seemingly simple solution to a difficult problem, be consistent with existing beliefs, be ethically compelling, make wonderful promises, appeal to the listener's pride, or come from a person loved or trusted. Yet the attraction is not the main problem. It is quite possible to consider nonsense without being convinced by it. It is at this point that the dogmatic defenses kick in.

In a free market of ideas, the dogmas that survive are those that are most resistant to reason and evidence--in short, those that that best resist falsification. No dogma is completely unfalsifiable, as virtually all dogmas make claims regarding the physical world. The solution is not to deal with contrary evidence or arguments piecemeal, but to embrace a broad strategy which undermines the legitimacy of inductive reasoning itself. This is best seen in the Wedge strategy, which seeks first to undermine methodological materialism, the basis of science, before advancing religious dogma in its place. Here we have, exposed for all to see, an element that is hidden in most dogmatic systems. Having found the population too smart for the dogmatists own good, they are actually seeking to reverse the Flynn effect and return us to a pre-modern way of thinking. In doing so, they would cut the thread upon which our prosperity, freedom, and even our very survival hang. Their success would lead to a staggering body count. Natrone23 didn't write this BTW. The credit goes to someone else


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 20, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> FDD sometimes I just don't get you, your using the same pattern of attack on anyone and anything you can in an attempt to discredit. Its pathetic, really.


yes it is........really. 
you say you dont take sides , thats an out n out lie. 
What you really believe and what you say does not go together at all. 

fdd you keep the thread alive with utubes and super calling out peoples mistakes in grammar.

cj ,  just plain rude, mean and watch all the utubes faithfully. like i said before you are the most ignorant one in this thread......yes the short bus thread that you stay involved in.
name calling just happens in a thread like this but cj , you have gone above and beyond that. 
i know kids that ride a "short bus" and if you can stoop to those levels of "rude"
then you are a sick son of a bitch. no one ever stoops to your level , everyone stays nice and calm with you and you still continue with the short bus shit. 
everytime we even try to debate you call names. thats not a debate thats a cry........Edit........


sorry folks i stooped down again to his level. i try my best to avoid that but the bullying stuff dont work on the internet.


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

9/11 was not an inside job grow rebel, your swallowing this stuff hook line and sinker, somtimes you have to spit buddy


you are wrong on almost every other topic you have posted in the politics section as well


your views are fringe for a reason, and they are fringe this is a fact. somtimes fringe is good dont get me wrong but not always.


but i can see why you love this little thread its like your sanctuary, you feel safe in here I know 


i keep unsubscribing but then that dastardly FDD will post somthing in here and force me to click on it!!!


thats right he forces me


i didnt really wanna be part of the club, i was just trying to infiltrate and sabatoge your little terrorist loving freinds network ill admit it


all you may have acomplished with this thread is make Alex Jones richer on the backs of the gulible, dont worry i wont name names



i find people like you perplexing, and i truly wish i could see the mechanics of what makes you think the things you do. the combination of personality traits and personal expiriance that has made you who you are


because what i have done all my life is suck the brains of any and everyone i meet, i steal the coolest parts of them and make them my own and I leave out the bad parts of them behind


if you do this you will end up being the best of everything, and know what sucks about people and try not to do those things


ive been training all my life, 




ok but being compleatly serious for once, can you describe a little about yourself and how you shaped your views about the world and how your expiriances possibly effected that.

in all seriousness i for real am curious to actually have a real conversation with you rather than a battle to see if we might actually for once be able to understand each other since it seems impossible that we can agree on much of anything


the floor is yours sir, 

you may ask me anything aswell and I shall answer


----------



## Keenly (Jan 20, 2010)

i really dont see how you can call us crazy when there are at least a thousand events that can not be proven wrong

were crazy because we can see a lie? ok...


and sorry big P, if you did some research, it would come off the page and slap you in the mouth


look up the 9/11 passport, then look up the north and south tower planes' black boxes


they can find a single piece of paper wrapped in leather, but some how they cant find these boxes made of the highest quality materials in existence 


look up when the military plane crashed into the empire state... the damage was minute, and the building didnt collapse

look up building 7, and the plain that went down in a field (supposedly, though no plane wreckage or black box was ever found)

its all lies, and they are so easy to see right through, yet people are hopelessly blinded by the american flag, a flag that used to represent freedom, but instead is now pulled over our eyes to hide the truth


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> yes it is........really.
> you say you dont take sides , thats an out n out lie.
> What you really believe and what you say does not go together at all.
> 
> ...



wooo hooo, as good a post as i could ever write.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

[youtube]Q_OIXfkXEj0[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> [youtube]Q_OIXfkXEj0[/youtube]


 

dude that has got to be the funnest shit i have ever seen


loooooooooooooooooooool



that arab dude was halarious lol


was that a real interview?



hahahah,



lol looked like that arab dude wanted to bitch slap that guy he siad why dont you go to the washington monument, "bring the family" at 3:02 pm october 12th lol


he said "talking with you is like talking to a goat" lol


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 20, 2010)

Big P said:


> was that a real interview?



My god I don't know who is the bigger moron you or the truthers


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

ok guys lets play,



ill waste my time on your ignorence and debunk your shit:


[youtube]oXxynEDpwrA[/youtube]




you guys have brought this upon yourselves, i think mostly people did not wanna waste thier time, but I will waste my time just so I can laugh at you guys


this video cannot be disproven


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> [youtube]Q_OIXfkXEj0[/youtube]




i guess we have to believe the terrorist right?
the same people that fucked you over so bad.
They was in a cave planning......(that guy was mistaking his limo for a cave i guess) we can get them on a big news network but yet we cant catch them? That guy had documents in his hands, is that not illegal? 
what happened in oct. 09 ? did we stop it ?

This video shows just how they use people like you to spread the ignorance. do you really think a terrorist would sit there and argue over who done it?


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

hahahahahahahahahaaaahahahaahahahahahahahahahah


[youtube]5j_c1tPMiG0[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

ROTFL!!!!!!


[youtube]t1wQ2BJsgx0[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

slimy guys very slimy

[youtube]Z96MZOZyilo[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

really guys you have taken the blame america first into treasonous levels



[youtube]7YXzjAKJQOg[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

and the noobs and the clowns the gulible and the weak take it hook line and sinker


[youtube]qLShZOvxVe4[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

have you enjoyed being fooled into acussing your own country of such horrible deeds while you allow the murderers to run free?

[youtube]tacYjsS-g6k[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

keenly they have been feeding you lies man


[youtube]Jb-OFhxvEo8[/youtube]


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 20, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> i guess we have to believe the terrorist right?
> the same people that fucked you over so bad.
> They was in a cave planning......(that guy was mistaking his limo for a cave i guess) we can get them on a big news network but yet we cant catch them? That guy had documents in his hands, is that not illegal?
> what happened in oct. 09 ? did we stop it ?
> ...



HOLY FUCKIN HELL ARE YOU THAT FUCKING RETARDED YOU CAN'T REALIZE THATS A SATIRICAL VIDEO.

MY FUCKING GOD.

i DON'T EVEN KNOW REAL HUMAN BEINGS THAT ARE AS DUMB AS YOU FUCKIN IDIOTS.


IF I DIDN'T HAVE THE INTERNET I WOULDN'T' BELIEVE THEIR WERE PEOPLE THIS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED..




"we can get them on a big news network"

THE ONION............HA HA HA HA HA HA HA OH MY FUCKING GOD.


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

I expect a full report on this in the morning GrowRebel



thanks for the inspiration F'Diddy


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 20, 2010)

Hey if you all want to stay inside that bubble they keep you in, then go ahead


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 20, 2010)

Big P said:


> ok guys lets play,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nor can it be proven , so run along now. the author of your videos is no different from all the authors in the videos we post. Watch your own videos and you will see. 
in that video it said and showed the thermal image, and went as far as to say what temps the steel can handle, but yet what happened to all the undamaged steel? they left that part out.

With your evidence, you might not wanna play this game anymore.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> HOLY FUCKIN HELL ARE YOU THAT FUCKING RETARDED YOU CAN'T REALIZE THATS A SATIRICAL VIDEO.
> 
> MY FUCKING GOD.
> 
> ...



it's still over his head. 

i fucking love this thread.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> nor can it be proven , so run along now. the author of your videos is no different from all the authors in the videos we post. Watch your own videos and you will see.
> in that video it said and showed the thermal image, and went as far as to say what temps the steel can handle, but yet what happened to all the undamaged steel? they left that part out.
> 
> With your evidence, you might not wanna play this game anymore.



you forgot to explain "the bowing', just like they said you would.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 20, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> HOLY FUCKIN HELL ARE YOU THAT FUCKING RETARDED YOU CAN'T REALIZE THATS A SATIRICAL VIDEO.
> 
> MY FUCKING GOD.
> 
> ...


settle the fuck down before you cry. 
that video was not satirical at all. read and you will see why that video was put there although _almost_ all of fdd's video's are sarcastic, this one was not.
again i dont need to stoop to that.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you forgot to explain "the bowing', just like they said you would.


you forgot to explain the undamaged steel.
i did not forget , but i am not skilled enough to "debunk" that if thats what your wantin from me? i think you know me a lil better then that fdd. i have stuck my foot in my mouth several times in this thread, but i am man enough to admit that. i am man enough to admit that i cannot in detail tell you all what happened that day. i admit that steel can and will weaken under the right amount of heat. 
Can you guys admit there is a cover up going on? thats the easiest part to see in this whole story?


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 20, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> settle the fuck down before you cry.
> That video was not satirical at all. Read and you will see why that video was put there although _almost_ all of fdd's video's are sarcastic, this one was not.
> Again i dont need to stoop to that.






wyteboi said:


> i have stuck my foot in my mouth several times in this thread,





oh my god oh my god oh my god lol h ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ahhh hhah ah ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> settle the fuck down before you cry.
> that video was not satirical at all. read and you will see why that video was put there although _almost_ all of fdd's video's are sarcastic, this one was not.
> again i dont need to stoop to that.


dude, it's a comedy news station. 

i'm laughing. it worked.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> dude, it's a comedy news station.
> 
> i'm laughing. it worked.


sorry i dont watch much tv. 




wyteboi said:


> i have stuck my foot in my mouth several times in this thread, but i am man enough to admit that.


i thought for sure that was real. 

well at least u have somewhat of a knowing of me fdd. (same as i do with u) i am not the brightest person in the world but i sure in the fuck try my hardest. you guys can say whatever you would like to/about me, but its not gonna help this topic. just because my grammar is all fucked up and i am no salesmen , does not mean i dont have common sense and plenty of smarts to go with. There is not many people who can do all the things i can do and be good at all of them and i got the years to back that........from kids to cars , computers and everything in between. I am an electrician and have built homes.
i am horrible at grammar , that speaks for itself. ok thats me love me or fuck me
I definatly do not believe everything i hear, but it is VERY OBVIOUS that the official report is fucked and its even more obvious that there is "something" to cover up, i dont know what exactly it is and niether do you, but we need a real investigation to see that. 
i am starting to see there will never be a real investigation , and i am seeing/learning why, Because they can take a perfectly normal individual like myself and turn them into a "crazy" real quick. hell its only been 8 years.




wb


----------



## Big P (Jan 20, 2010)

the dream is over boys its time to move on

i dont want to ruin your fun but I think its for your own good, this is not healthy

i mean how could you live in a country where you truley believe the government is an uspeakable horrer against its own people,


i couldnt even live in a country that did that

to be honest if you really think it was an inside job why dont you find who did it anyone involved must be destroyed no?


wouldnt it be our duty being the ones who know the truth to stop another inside job?


wtf are we doing sitting on our asses here what if they do it again!!!!



if you really believe this happend and was happening again, you would be much more pissed and talking about violence in this thread to take back your country through any means necessary



i just took 2 shots of dragon im about to fall out


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 20, 2010)

Like i said, if you cant comprehend even the possibility of the goverment doing something like this, then you need to move on, your just another sheep in the herd.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3685187]Like i said, if you cant comprehend even the possibility of the goverment doing something like this, then you need to move on, your just another sheep in the herd.[/QUOTE]

if you CAN comprehend, and you DON'T do anything, then YOU are the shep. 

and "anything" does NOT include "spreading the word".  we ALL got the word already. it's time get up and TAKE ACTION.

ALL i see are bitches bitching.


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> if you CAN comprehend, and you DON'T do anything, then YOU are the shep.
> 
> and "anything" does NOT include "spreading the word".  we ALL got the word already. it's time get up and TAKE ACTION.
> 
> ALL i see are bitches bitching.


lol the whole point is to be aware, there really isnt nothing to taken action upon, except provide information to those willing to listen. And so far, alot of people are still walking in the herd. You can't use what i always say to everyone else in this section, there the ones with the worlds answers yet keep there massive knowledge kept secret in a marijuana forum. And im not sure what shep is, but i am definitly not a sheep. 

i mean if i was i would be here like some poeple who will remain nameless and eat everything the media and society throws at em, the world is fuc'd up, just like america


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 20, 2010)

herd
sheep
insult
can't win
blah
blah


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 21, 2010)

lol no one is trying to win anything. 

again, the point is to be aware, take it or leave it, thats the bottom line. this is the last thing im going to say, especially with a cheesy response like that FDD  


you sure told me huh


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3687990]lol no one is trying to win anything. 

again, the point is to be aware, take it or leave it, thats the last thing im going to say, especially with a cheesy response like that FDD  


you sure told me huh[/QUOTE]

aware of what? a good story? 


i'm not here trying to prove anything. hence the "cheesy" replies.

this thread is comedy. 

nothing more.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 21, 2010)

Big P said:


> the dream is over boys its time to move on
> 
> i dont want to ruin your fun but I think its for your own good, this is not healthy


this is not what i call "fun". i dont enjoy being called a bitch or a crazy person, i am by far from either, but i will continue to say what i have to say all the way to the end if you guys wanna keep callin names fine, lets roll. 
Yes you are all sheep if you *cant* question your government. (if you dont want to or give a fuck then you shouldnt be in this thread anyways) 
How does 5 or 10 things that have never happened in recorded history , ALL happen in one day? Why would i be crazy for asking that simple question? Why would they hide the black boxes? How did the news miss the whole plane at the flight 93 crash site, you dont think we would have seen a tiny piece or something? How did the floor blow up out from underneath Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, without there being explosives in the building? ..............and i could go on all day with these questions.
My own general common sense says if fire brought down them buildings then none of them would have fell strait into itself ? thats just an opinion. 


Big P said:


> i mean how could you live in a country where you truley believe the government is an uspeakable horrer against its own people,
> i couldnt even live in a country that did that


Well picking a country to live in is probably not the easiest choice to make. 


Big P said:


> to be honest if you really think it was an inside job why dont you find who did it anyone involved must be destroyed no?


 well the same punishment they would give me for a crime like that would suit me just fine.



Big P said:


> wouldnt it be our duty being the ones who know the truth to stop another inside job?
> 
> 
> wtf are we doing sitting on our asses here what if they do it again!!!!


well i bet you know the definition of a false flag attack , which i am sure you did not before. What else can we do?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

you could cry about it on a pot forum all day. i'm sure that will help. 


once again, if you believe the government did this and you continue to nothing about it. then you are the sheep. you are being herded along. whether you rant about it or not. it's all blah, blah, blah, ..... but you still stay in line.


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 21, 2010)

I guess spreading information is not doing anything huh 

Fail.


----------



## Big P (Jan 21, 2010)

why do you guys keep saying they did not find any wreckage thats a complete lie:


[youtube]Jb-OFhxvEo8[/youtube]

below is the link of the trascript of flight 93, the black boxes were found on the 13th september 2001!

click this link you can hear the whole screaming and crying for yourselves!
http://community.sceneinpa.com/_The-Flight-93-Black-Box/VIDEO/256804/27455.html







*Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash *


Thursday, September 13, 2001 
By Tom Gibb, James O'Toole and Cindi Lash, Post-Gazette Staff Writers 


Investigators this afternoon discovered the "black box" containing flight data recordings from United Flight 93 at the crash site in rural Somerset County. 

*Online map: *
*Crash of United Flight 93 *


Pittsburgh FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said the flight data recorder was found about 4:50 p.m. in the main crater at the crash site, located near Shanksville. Crowley said he didn't know whether the recorder was operable, or whether officials would be able to gather information from it. 
Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine. 
Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene. 
Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday. 
Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that, at the same time, the first human remains have been removed from the site in a prelude to the somber challenge of identifying the 45 victims of the crash. 
While the investigation at the crime scene began to settle into a grim routine, the emergency personnel were also preparing for the visits of families of the victims. 
The first of those visits to the crash scene could occur as early as this afternoon. 
"We're prepared to do whatever we can to help them with the grieving process," said Special Agent Bill Crowley of the FBI's Pittsburgh office. 
"The other priority is the black box," Crowley said. "We're confident that we are going to keep looking for it and we will account for it." 
Whether that search will yield usable information was one of the key questions hanging over this stage of the investigation. If it does, it could provide insight into what may have been a terrifying struggle between hijackers and passengers that kept the Boeing 757 from hitting an intended target in a populated area. 
Cell phone calls from passengers have fueled the speculation about such a scenario, along with the fact that this was the only one of the four planes that crashed Tuesday that did not hit a populated, high-profile target. 
While some officials were reportedly pessimistic about the chances of finding the flight recorders intact, Crowley said there was no way to determine their conditions until they were located. 
Crowley emphasized that the still elusive data might show "what everyone desperately wants to know: What was happening on that plane." 
He also said the National Transportation Safety Board has told investigators that the plane, which began its flight in Newark, N.J., was flying east when it crashed but could provide no other information about its path or intended target. 
In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues. 
"This is not a finite [crime] scene," said Crowley. "As things are discovered, it expands and contracts." 
In response to a question on recurring rumors that the plane might have been shot down, Crowley said that at this stage of the investigation, no possibility was being ruled out. He stressed, however, that no evidence had surfaced to support that theory. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, noted and discounted the same speculation here Tuesday, saying that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield had assured him that the government had not shot down the hijacked plane to prevent it from hitting a potential target.




Aftermath
Further information: Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks
 
One of the engines unearthed


*Flight* *93* fragmented violently upon impact. Most of the aircraft wreckage was *found* near the impact crater.[73] Investigators *found* some very light debris including paper and nylon scattered up to eight miles (13 km) from the impact point in New Baltimore, Pennsylvania.[74] Other tiny aircraft fragments were *found* 1.5 miles (2.4 km) away at Indian Lake, Pennsylvania.[75] All human remains were *found* within a 70 acre (28 ha) area surrounding the impact point.[75] Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. As he walked through the wreckage, the only recognizable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached.[76] Miller later *found* and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total.[77] The rest of the remains were consumed by the impact.[78] Investigators identified four victims by September 22 and eleven by September 24.[79][80] They identified another by September 29.[81] Thirty-four passengers were identified by October 27.[82] All the people on board the *flight* were identified by December 21. Human remains were so fragmented investigators could not determine if any victims were dead before the plane crashed. Death certificates for the 40 victims listed the cause of death as homicides and listed the cause of death for the four hijackers as suicides.[83] The remains and personal effects of the victims were returned to the families.[84] The remains of the hijackers, identified by the process of elimination, were turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as evidence.[85]
 
Piece of fuselage *found* at crash site


Investigators also *found* a knife disguised as a cigarette lighter.[86] They located the *flight* data recorder on September 13 and the cockpit voice recorder the following day.[87][88] *The voice recorder was found buried 25 feet (8 m) below the crater. The FBI initially refused to release the voice recording, rejecting requests by **congresswoman* *Ellen Tauscher** and family members of those on board.[89] The FBI subsequently allowed the relatives of the Flight 93 victims to listen to the recording in a closed session on April 18, 2002.[90] Jurors for the **Zacarias Moussaoui** trial heard the tape as part of the proceedings and the transcript was publicly released on April 12, 2006.[91]*


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 21, 2010)

Damn and here i was lost and confused, when the whole time SceneinPA had all the right ASNWERS!!

thanks Big P


----------



## Big P (Jan 21, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3688187]Damn and here i was lost and confused, when the whole time SceneinPA had all the right ASNWERS!!

thanks Big P[/QUOTE]


I dont get it?


i also dont get why you keep saying "if you cant even say its a possiblity"


no one said its impossible we are saying in this case that is not what occured



i mean its right there you guys been saying all these lies left and right and turns out its all bullshit

the recorders were found

you have the transcripts

you have the wreckage


you cant possibly be this stubborn people


what happened to growrebel??


where did you dissapear to everyone??


god i didnt even think it would be that easy to dig up the truth i thought you guys would have atleast done a tiny bit of your homework


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3688158]I guess spreading information is not doing anything huh 

Fail.[/QUOTE]

this thread is years old. it's the same handful of people posting. spreading misinformation to the 5 of us is not doing anything to help. 

baaaah, baaaah, baaaah, ...........


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 21, 2010)

Only a therapist can help them....


----------



## undertheice (Jan 21, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Only a therapist can help them....


there are some folks that even a shrink won't touch.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 21, 2010)

From what I've been reading ... conspiracy psychosis is actually very difficult to cure.

It's a serious mental debilitation.


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 21, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> this thread is years old. it's the same handful of people posting. spreading misinformation to the 5 of us is not doing anything to help.
> 
> baaaah, baaaah, baaaah, ...........


again, (i hate repeating myself all the time) since people dont read, the point is to be aware, all im say is when and if shit hits the fan, people like you and other's will be the least prepared, and most likely the first ones to suffer. Wyte Boi said it the best in that if you cant question your own government, then you need to wake up. 

But im assuming that with your "baaaah"ing you are stating and admitting your a sheep? 

I said before i have read both sides and get what each is saying, but i believe more towards one side, you gotta just accept other people will have different opinion's, thats like saying since i HATE pea's, everyone who likes them is fucin looney and needs help 


but seriously, dont like the info, just stay out, does this make you feel good or something lol
you guys really hold your selves a lil too high, hows the weather up there?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

http://hostmaster.steadyhealth.com/Loss_of_sense_in_paranoid_frantic_psychosis_t191718.html


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3688527]again, (i hate repeating myself all the time) since people dont read, the point is to be aware, all im say is when and if shit hits the fan, people like you and other's will be the least prepared, and most likely the first ones to suffer. Wyte Boi said it the best in that if you cant question your own government, then you need to wake up. 

But im assuming that with your "baaaah"ing you are stating and admitting your a sheep? 

I said before i have read both sides and get what each is saying, but i believe more towards one side, you gotta just accept other people will have different opinion's, thats like saying since i HATE pea's, everyone who likes them is fucin looney and needs help 


but seriously, dont like the info, just stay out, does this make you feel good or something lol
you guys really hold your selves a lil too high, hows the weather up there?[/QUOTE]





what are you talking about?

[youtube]eL4T4Waqu28[/youtube]


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 21, 2010)

I wasn't aware that everyone was saying the government did this, I thought everyone was saying that SOME people who happen to be in upper levels of government did this or at least conspired with others to let it happen. Is there a US Department of Terror and Mayhem that we don't know about, and Has Obama hired a Czar to run it all?


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 21, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> what are you talking about?
> 
> [youtube]eL4T4Waqu28[/youtube]



when it happens, you'll know what im talking about 

i love you all, but dont mind me im crazy


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 21, 2010)

Big P said:


> I dont get it?
> 
> i also dont get why you keep saying "if you cant even say its a possiblity"
> 
> ...


ok finally a post with some debate to it 
the wreckage is defiantly worth looking into, and thats all we are asking for. 
about the boxes, i was referring to the 4 boxes in wtc. i mean they found an ID , and thats a joke and you all know it. thats not even close to reasonable thinking.
and how about the other very simple things i asked? 
So far you are just posting utubes just like us........no more credible source then the 1000,s we have.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 21, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Is there a US Department of Terror and Mayhem that we don't know about, and Has Obama hired a Czar to run it all?


this was one of the few good laughs i've had around here lately. i laughed at the thought of obama trying to find someone qualified to be our new mayhem czar until i realized that most of his team would fit the bill quite nicely.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 21, 2010)

Big P said:


> why do you guys keep saying they did not find any wreckage thats a complete lie:
> *https://www.rollitup.org/#cite_note-90*



ive got two things for you big P, where were the black boxes for the planes that crashed into both the towers? they were "never found"

also, in your little flight 93 crash site, where were the bodies?

the county coroner is on record stating "i stopped being coroner after twenty minutes, because there were no bodies"


so, why is their no bodies on a plane that "crashed" into a field? because there was not anybody on the plane


and there is still the irrefutable evidence of the event of the pentagon

its painfully obvious a plane did not hit the pentagon, the lawn wasnt fucked up, the hole was not bug enough, there was no tail/wing section debris, some how the "plane" managed to knock 5 or 6 light poles out of the ground

if that actually was a plane and it hit a light post at over 300 mph as they claim it was flying, the wing would have ripped right off, just like that plane that was on its way to pick up george bush, hit a single light pole. and the wing just came right off... its aluminum, a very soft metal

and why have they not released a single camera view that shows a plane crashing into the pentagon, instead of the 5 frame security cam we have all seen, none of the 5 frames show a plane, so its useless


there are so many fucking questions its ridiculous

and we are here to ask

why, why did they do this, what was done at this time, why did norad stand down, why were people told not to fly, why (how) did people make cell phone calls from 30,000 feet when, through scientific testing, it was proven that at 32,000 feet, you will have a .06% success rate establishing a call


why on one of the calls did the "caller" call his own mother and say "mom this is*first and last name" (when was the last time you used your full name to identify yourself to your own parent" and why did he ask "you believe me dont you mom? you believe me right?"


we are here to ask WHY

when we get not only no answers, but a complete attempt to avoid the questions, from the government, what the fuck are we supposed to think, just stick our heads in the sand and forget it ever happened? fuck no


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 21, 2010)

This illustrates many people points of view.

[youtube]oBQqJvpOndo[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 21, 2010)

Keenly said:


> ive got two things for you big P, where were the black boxes for the planes that crashed into both the towers? they were "never found"
> 
> also, in your little flight 93 crash site, where were the bodies?
> 
> ...


 

dude how are you gonna post the same lies when i just showed you the proof in the last page!!! lol you didnt even look at it did you


the hole in the pentagon was plenty big enough, pls reread my posts with video of the hole and photos the plan is abour 12' wide the hole is 18' wide

plane wreckage everywhere


a good man needs to realize when he should just admit that they have been wrong dude


and the wing would not have ripped off from a fucking light post homie they build those things on raised bolts to allow them to snap instantly when they are hit by something IE a passenger vehicle

norad did not stand down your lieing!!! proven false in my previous posts


the people made most all the calls from seat back phones!!!! watch all the shit i posted ive already proven you wrong a zillion times!!!!! 



no wonder you belive this crap you must be the thickest person on earth dude really!!!


you ever been scared shittless and very distracted, u might fucking say mom this is rickey henderson in a panic many people will automically do weird shit in a panic trust me i seen it first hand!


lol when you get answers you say??

 you have them all, i posted them yesterday!!!! just fucking read them and stop asking questions you already have answer too and then tell me we just want answers!!

stop asking how they could have made cell phone calls from the plane when they actually made them from the seat back phones!!


your lier plain and simple.


good day


----------



## Keenly (Jan 21, 2010)

Im lying because my evidence differs from yours?


interesting...

there was no 747 debris near the pentagon, show me one piece of wing, tail, a window , show me something that proves that, you cant, because it doesnt exist, so how am i lying when your the one claiming something happened that didnt?

and i supposed building 7 came down from falling debris right?


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 21, 2010)

Big P you make a good argument for a lot of it, but its not proof. I think in one of your videos they say the steel weakened, and I can totally agree with that 100%, but just those floors, the 80 floors below were not weakened one bit and using the principles of Newton's laws the top floors that were pancaking would have met with resistance, causing the tower to lean and essentially ejecting the weakened part, while the rest of the tower should have stayed somewhat intact. Each floor is built way way stronger than it needs to be, the way the buildings fell you would swear they were made of wood covered in concrete. I mean the buildings just broke, 100% total failure, even though less than 5% of the building was damaged. I don't buy it.

In another portion of one of the videos it says the steel structure was covered with foam fireproofing, and while this is true it does not tell the whole story. The foam was made of asbestos, now asbestos has one really really really awesome property, its a insulator of heat like nothing else. You can get a 1/16 inch thick piece of asbestos, put it 1mm from your hand, take a blowtorch to it and stand there all day and you won't burn your hand.Its FANTASTIC stuff, if it didn't cause you to curl up and die from its tiny fibers that attack your lungs, Billy Mays himself would have sold a shit load of it.

Another thing I don't buy is the fact that the video tries to suggest that those "Squibs" are actually air being pushed down elevator shafts and exiting out "Weak" spots in the floors below. While this may suffice for the less scientifically educated,I dare say it is dubious at best. The squibs are highly concentrated and completely opaque in nature. Surely your not suggesting that the air many many floors below the fires and damage are chock full of debris are you?

I guess I have to take issue with the explanation of the "Wave" in the windows being the blinds. This could totally be true, and hell I think its a great explanation, but you now need to explain why the blew out as they did, in rapid succession from bottom to top. A moment later the building starts to disintegrate into itself starting at the bottom. The thing with the blinds is that if it were caused by an outside force would you expect to see the blinds pushed inward where they would escape view. Instead the video appears to show them being blown out, which can only mean that some force INSIDE the building could have done that. Is it possible the whole building just "Cracked" at that part of the building? I suppose if it were a masonry or wood framed building I could agree, but WTC 7 is also a steel building. They build skyscrapers to last for a long long long time don't they?

So what if they didn't use any explosives until the buildings were already starting to come down? What IF they used Thermite (Which makes no noise) to Pre-weaken all the core steel beams to ensure total collapse?

There are plenty of theories out there and I am afraid we will most likely never know the real truth. There are evil people in this world. There are people with an agenda. There are people who control things from behind closed doors.


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 21, 2010)

Big P said:


> the democratic party is stealing our money, and bankruping our country and making us less safe. if you dont think we are better off with a balance so no one party can run us into the ground then you are the fool


 The same could be said of the Republican party, I mean you really have to ask yourself. If Republicans AND democrats both agree that 1) Deficits are bad, 2)Spending is bad when you are broke 3) Wars are bad, and we don't like them then please explain why 1) We have deficits, 2) we have Spending and 3) We have war? Its because that's what they want, they pay lip service to us, telling us what we want to hear, all the while lining their own nests and jockeying over positions of power and wealth. Sincerely I think that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats when it comes to the issues that REALLY matter.


----------



## Big P (Jan 21, 2010)

just saying man if there was even a tiny shred of real evidence dont you think the democrats would have been all over it like flys on shit?



if these are just blatent lies and tottally incorrect scientifclly like you guys try to say

wouldnt it make ultimate sense the democrats and even people like john mcain and other true patriots would have the fires of hell burning in the capitol to explain why these so called official story does not jive scietifically?


its like you guys think you are the all knowing, and all the real experts and great people across the world real experts out there just missed this?


that is pretty concieted if you ask me


you gotta always rember no matter how much you think you know theres always somone who knows more

the fact is there are t0o many people, educted smart people who do not see it the same you do

to be honest its mainly the rediculessly missinformed people who believe this and thats because its all based on lies and propeganda that has already been proven wrong misleading and driven simply for profit or polical shenanigans


if it walks like a duck then talks like a duck then shits on your face and laughs why try to convince yourself that is was somthing else that shit on your face


your just allowing the duck to shit on some one else so you dont have to deal with the problem

many liberals cringe when they hear of another terrorist attack but not cuz they care persay about the loss of life but because they hate the war on terror and wish it would just go away


i think theres somthing to that, you guys are the same like those guys except not smart enough to realize that it really is the terrorists doing it 

like the progressive left inteligencia already knows, yet they still hate the war on terror and wish it was somthing else, 

you guys just take it one step further and convince yourselves that its not really any terrorist at all



and thats were the friction begins, its not like we are arguing about who took all the candy, we are talking about who killed our families, who is still trying to kill our families

so its extreamly offensive to us if it wasnt such a fringe thing you guys would litterly be putting our families in danger


makes me think of the begining of the iraq war when a lot of people went to iraq to be used as human shields

talk about complete bafoons the terrorist must have had a field day with those anti war kids from europe and america


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 21, 2010)

In my currently held honest opinion

It seems to me that the Twin Towers fell because giant planes hit them, and the resultant damage led to weakening and collapse. There may be 'anomalies' unseen at first, but I'm not big enough to dismiss the glaring formula of (Plane+Hit)+Building=Collapse.

However WTC7's collapse appears to be dubious, even amidst the damage sustained.
The FEMA report on WTC7 seems to me to require a decent stretch of the imagination, and other justifications, rationalisations, and logical dismissals do not replace the also glaring formula of (WTC7+Damage=Collapse)=Bullshit.

Which is what makes 9/11 battles so interesting to me, because it feels like I can call bullshit on both sides.

'The twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition'. - BULLSHIT - Great big planes flew into them at high speeds and they fell from their 'injuries'.

'WTC7 fell down from trusses weakened by diesel fires' - BULLSHIT - Let's start a demolition company, all we need is a catapult to fling 'debris' at the building then we'll pour diesel in the basement and start a fire, the whole thing will collapse neatly at, say, 5pm. We'll save millions on labor and explosives.


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 21, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Some people just want to be asleep at the wheel. It makes no difference, both parties have the same handlers ... you are foolish to think one is better than the other.


yup.



Big P said:


> this is a complete lie,
> 
> 
> the democratic party is stealing our money, and bankruping our country and making us less safe. if you dont think we are better off with a balance so no one party can run us into the ground then you are the fool


Although true, I found it funny (literally...I "LOL'd") that this evidently has only been occuring for the last year????? Wow!



Big P said:


> why do you guys keep saying they did not find any wreckage thats a complete lie:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The engine next to the excavator bucket is not big enough to be a 757 rotor.

Since when do Airlines fly with 140 EMPTY seats!!! The 40 or so tickets would not even cover the fuel cost!

And seriously...All passengers remains were identified...this is total bullshit.

Anyone with kids (or girlfriends) knows that if there is one "mis-truth" there are undoubtedly others...However there are too many for me not to question EVERY damn word of the "official" investigation.

The BS reported about Shanksville...the diesel fires bringing down wtc7...the FBI rightfully confiscating the surveillance tapes from the hotel and gas station with views of the pentagon "crash" and then only releasing the 5 frames that do not show a plane...WHY!!!!! Is this part of the divide and conquer? Abortion! Terror! Socialism! Terror! (the gift that keeps on giving)

edit: I meant to add this...


NoDrama said:


> This illustrates many people points of view.
> 
> [youtube]oBQqJvpOndo[/youtube]



And lastly...the name calling by a few 23 year old e-thugs is nauseating


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




so they do this grand scheme and then use the wrong engine?

and you think they are smart enough to pull it off and keep it a secret?

logic lost.


----------



## Big P (Jan 21, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

dude planes fly empty all the time, somtimes even completely empty just to get the plane back to its destination airport


and yea thats funny they orchestrated this whole thing even left it to crazy chance that no one would have noticed that it was a missle that hit the pentagon and that no one might have a camera rolling and catch them in the act before they could confiscate all the video footage

and these appearnt evil geniouses, who pulled that above off, while setting up the so called fake penn crash, they put the wrong type of engine in the wreckage and planted the wrong type of engine???



are you serious, is that really what you are trying to pass off to us??


show this picture you speak of with the wrong engine in it and we can investigate


heres your buddy, he watched the plane crash right into the pentagon


[youtube]t1wQ2BJsgx0[/youtube]



next


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 21, 2010)

I have always wondered why the leaders refused to testify under Oath?


----------



## Big P (Jan 21, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so they do this grand scheme and then use the wrong engine?
> 
> and you think they are smart enough to pull it off and keep it a secret?
> 
> logic lost.


 
lol i didnt even see your post till i wrote mine



FAIL!




NEXT


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

Big P said:


> lol i didnt even see your post till i wrote mine
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what more needs to be said?


----------



## mr.red (Jan 21, 2010)

Inside job!


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 21, 2010)

Thread fail...... it's over.


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 21, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so they do this grand scheme and then use the wrong engine?
> 
> and you think they are smart enough to pull it off and keep it a secret?
> 
> logic lost.


I do not think they kept it a secret...though some still have fingers in their ears...lalalalala I can't hear you!

I do not think it is logical either! That is the problem.

According to the NTSB flight 93 crashed with 37,500lb of fuel or 5,500 gallons (took off with 48,700lb)

It is also not logical that AA would pump 48,700lb of expensive jet fuel for 33 people to fly in a plane that seats 182...Thank jeebus that Captain Kirk came along to save AA from bad business decisions!...logic lost! I sure would not fly at 18% occupancy!

And luckily all of the crime dramas had finished up their filming and could offer up their magical DNA labs and ID ALL of the individuals...and return their personal effects...(The WHO plays in background)...again logic lost

And the FBI must have 'touched the tape' rendering all but 5 frames of the tape useless...probably for our own collective good...right?

I still hold out hope that very soon...a one-liner will make everything pretty again!

Do you really think that a bunch of dudes hiding in caves in Afghanistan were so mad at us for helping them beat the Soviets that they came to the US to learn to fly little planes so that they could provoke us into a Holy war, fooled all us backwards hillbillies (FBI, CIA, NSA...not to mention all the foreign spooks) with their funny talk...and did some top-gun piloting of large commercial jets...while NORAD, the USAF, and the Navy kept their fingers crossed...then half of these crafty little spelunkers end up surviving slamming a 757 at 480mph...yada yada yada...

Logic lost.

Now, that may have been a little dramatic...but the literary model will work with numerous elements


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 21, 2010)

Gratz on the activity award CJ!


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> I do not think they kept it a secret...though some still have fingers in their ears...lalalalala I can't hear you!
> 
> I do not think it is logical either! That is the problem.
> 
> ...



the question is, "do _you_ really believe they couldn't have?"


----------



## mr.red (Jan 21, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Thread fail...... it's over.


lol

sorry, i was bored


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

they didn't have an extra engine of the proper model laying around? so they just went with want they had? and what dropped it out of a balloon? how did that engine, even though some say it was the wrong engine, end up buried in that field? easter bunny? stop and EXPLAIN one thing please. just one thing.

"why would *they* use the wrong engine?"

answer here:








.


----------



## Big P (Jan 21, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> I do not think they kept it a secret...though some still have fingers in their ears...lalalalala I can't hear you!
> 
> I do not think it is logical either! That is the problem.
> 
> ...













[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*MSNBC.com*[/FONT]

Al-Qaida timeline: Plots and attacks 

msnbc.com and NBC News

Below is an integrated chronology of the public face of al-Qaida, including terror plots and attacks blamed on the loose network and its alleged associate groups, leaders public statements, and the U.S. response, including the hunt for, capture or killing of top leaders, beginning in 1992.

*PLOTS AND ATTACKS*
*(Attacks in Iraq blamed on Ansar al Islam and its leader, Abu Musawi al-Zarqawi, can be found in this separate document.)*

*-- Dec. 29, 1992 *
In the first al-Qaida attack against U.S. forces, operatives bomb a hotel where U.S. troops -- on their way to a humanitarian mission in Somalia -- had been staying. Two Austrian tourists are killed. Almost simultaneously, another group of al-Qaida operatives are caught at Aden airport, Yemen, as they prepare to launch rockets at U.S. military planes. U.S. troops quickly leave Aden.


*--Feb. 26, 1993*
The first World Trade Center attack and the first terrorist attack on America. A bomb built in nearby Jersey City is driven into an underground garage at the trade center and detonated, killing six and wounding 1,500. Yousef, nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, masterminds the attack, working with nearly a dozen local Muslims. While U.S. officials disagree on whether Osama bin Laden instituted the attack and Yousef denies he has met bin Laden, the CIA later learns that Yousef stayed in a bin Laden-owned guest house in Pakistan both before and after the attacks.

*--April  June 23, 1993*
Militants plan a series of near simultaneous bombings in New York. Among the targets were prominent New York monuments: The Lincoln and Holland tunnels linking New York to New Jersey, the George Washington Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, the United Nations, the last to be planted with the help of diplomats from the Sudanese mission, the Federal Building at 26 Federal Plaza, and finally, one in the Diamond District along 47th Street, populated by mostly Jewish diamond dealers. On June 23, as terrorists mix chemicals for the bombs, FBI agents raid their warehouse and arrest twelve.

*-- May - July 28, 1993 *
After two months of planning, Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, travels to Karachi, the hometown of Benazir Bhutto, then former prime minister of Pakistan, who is seeking to regain her old job. He and two others are in the process of planting a remote control bomb on the road when the ageing Soviet detonator he obtained in Afghanistan explodes in his face, ending the plot. Financing for the bombing comes from radical Islamic groups in Pakistan, according to Bhutto.

*-- June 1993 *
Al-Qaida reportedly attempts to assassinate then Jordanian Crown Prince Abdullah. He succeeded his father as king of Jordan in February, 1999.

*--Oct. 3-4, 1993*
In a battle for the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia, a unit of U.S. special operations forces gets pinned down after two U.S. helicopters are shot out of the sky. Eighteen Americans die, killed by Somalis reportedly trained by al-Qaida. It is true that my colleagues fought with [Somali warlord] Farah Adids forces in Somalia, bin Laden subsequently claims. The al-Qaida leader also insists, with a characteristic exaggeration, that 100 Americans died in the attack, not 18. The attack leads to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia, a move hailed by bin Laden as a great victory for the Islamic world.

*--March 11, 1994*
Led by Ramzi Yousef, a group of Islamic militants hijack a delivery truck in downtown Bangkok, strangle the driver and load a one-ton bomb on board. Their target: the Israeli embassy. But the truck has an accident and the hijacker abandons it, leading to the discovery of the bomb and drivers body. Several of the plotters are arrested, but Yousef escapes again.

*--June 1994*
Imad Mugniyeh, the military chief of Hezbollah during its 1980s attacks on U.S. personnel, meets secretly with Bin Laden in Khartoum. Mughniyeh, at that point the most wanted terrorist in the world for his role in the Beirut embassy and Marine Barracks bombing, advises Bin Laden on planning. 
Ali Mohamed, the al-Qaida security director at the time, later tells U.S. officials that Mughniyeh told bin Laden how the Marine bombing in Beirut led to the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon and how such a campaign could eventually lead to a similar route of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the whole Islamic world. 

*-- June 20, 1994*
Ramzi Yousef, working with the Peoples Mujahedin of Iran, blows up the Shrine of Reza, the great grandson of Mohammed and a Shiite saint, in Mashad, Iran. The explosion took out the entire wall of the mausoleum, killing 26 pilgrims, mostly women. At the time, Yousef was motivated as much by hatred of Shiite Muslims as by hatred of America. Also involved in the plot were his father and brother.

*-- Nov. 12-14, 1994*
Extremists working for bin Laden conduct extensive surveillance of President Bill Clinton and his party during a state visit to Manila in anticipation of mounting an assassination attempt when Clinton returns to the Philippine capital in November 1996 for an already scheduled APEC summit. Bin Laden orders al-Qaida to use still and video cameras to follow Clinton and Secret Service personnel. The Secret Service later learns from an al-Qaida defector that the surveillance was extensive, and the tapes along with maps and notes were sent to bin Laden, who was then living in Sudan. The Secret Service was unaware of the surveillance although there was some concern at the time that the president was exposed during the trip. We did not know there was a plot to assassinate the president, said a high-ranking Secret Service official. We only found out later.


*--Dec. 8, 1994 - Jan. 5, 1995 *
Ramzi Yousef rents an apartment in the Dona Josefa apartment complex on Quirino Boulevard, in Manila, Philippines, believing that Pope John Paul II will take that route on his way to a huge outdoor mass planned for Jan. 15. The apartment is only 500 feet from the Manila home of the Vatican ambassador to the Philippines where the Pope will stay during his 5-day visit to the country. In addition, he rents a beach house to train his compatriots for the attack and purchases two Bibles, a crucifix, a large poster of the Pope, several priests garments  accurate down to the tunic buttons and confessional manuals. The plan, investigators said, was to place a bomb under a manhole cover along Quirino Boulevard. The attack is thwarted when bomb-making materials catch fire in the sink of the apartment kitchen. As it turns out, the pope travels to the Mass by helicopter.

*-- Dec. 10, 1994*
As part of the planning for the Day of Hate [see below] Yousef plants a crude bomb on board a Philippines Airlines plane from Cebu City, the Philippines, to Tokyo. When the bomb detonates, it kills one passenger, a Japanese businessman, and forces the plane, a 747, to land in Okinawa. Yousef calibrates the damage and increases the size of the bomb so it can take down an entire jumbo jet.

*-- Jan. 21-22, 1995*
In what would have been an attack with a higher death toll than the Sept. 11 attacks, bombs placed on board 11 jumbo jets are to be detonated by timing devices as the planes fly over the Pacific, killing an estimated 4,000 people. Most of the jets are to be American carriers and most of the dead would have been Americans. The bombs would have been timed to go off over a number of hours to heighten the terror. The plan, called the Day of Hate, was conceived by Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing and his uncle, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Only a fire in Yousefs Manila apartment on Jan. 6 thwarts it. Mohammed later modifies the plan and takes it to Osama bin Laden. That modified plan becomes the blueprint for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

*--June 26, 1995*
Less than an hour after Egypts President Hosni Mubarak arrives in Addis Ababa to attend the Organization of African Unity summit, several members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a group working with al-Qaida, attack his motorcade. Ethiopian forces kill five of the attackers and capture three others. Ethiopia and Egypt charge the government of Sudan, where bin Laden is living, with complicity in the attack and harboring suspects. Privately, Egyptian officials tell U.S. intelligence they believe Bin Laden is behind the attack. Later, Egyptian officials learn that the terrorists had conducted surveillance of the last trip Mubarak had made to Ethiopia, just as they had with President Clinton.

*-- Nov. 13, 1995*
A truck bomb explodes outside the Saudi National Guard Communications Center in central Riyadh, killing five American servicemen and two Indian police. Four Saudi men, all self-described disciples of bin Laden, are quickly executed before the FBI can determine their ties to al-Qaida.

*-- June 25, 1996*
In an attack whose authorship is still debated by intelligence and law enforcement officials, a truck bomb is detonated at the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding 400. Although an indictment in early 2001 pins blame on Shiite Muslims backed by Iran, many U.S. officials still believe bin Laden is responsible. Bin Laden himself states in a 1997 interview, Only Americans were killed in the explosions. No Saudi suffered any injury. When I got the news about these blasts, I was very happy.

*--Aug. 8, 1998 *
Al-Qaida sends suicide bombers into the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Truck bombs kill more than 240 people, including 12 Americans at the Nairobi embassy. The attack results in the quick arrest of several of the bombers, but not the mastermind, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed. Also known as Harun, Mohammed is involved in later al-Qaida attacks.

*--Jan. 1-3, 2000*
U.S. and Jordanian authorities thwart attacks planned to coincide with the Millennium celebrations. In mid-December, Jordanian authorities arrest more than 20 al-Qaida operatives who are planning to bomb three locations where American tourists gather: Mt. Nebo, where Moses first saw the Promised Land; the Ramada Hotel in Amman, a stopover for tour groups; and the spot on the Jordan River where tradition holds John the Baptist baptized Christ. Later in the month, U.S. authorities seize Ahmed Ressam at a border crossing in Port Angeles, WA. He is carrying bomb-making equipment and later discusses his plan to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve.


*-- Jan. 13, 2000*
The cross Africa Dakar-to-Cairo auto race is diverted after the U.S. intelligence community receives word of a planned ambush in the African nation of Niger. Word of the planned ambush was passed to race organizers over the weekend shortly after it was received, leading to a suspension of the race and a massive airlift on Thursday. Cargo planes were flying some 1,365 crew members and 336 vehicles as well as tons of equipment from Niamey, capital of Niger, to Sabha in southern Libya.

*-- Oct. 12, 2000 *
A bomb on board a small Zodiac-like boat detonates near the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding scores more. The bombing also kills two al-Qaida operatives in the boat. The United States later learns the Cole was the second destroyer targeted by al-Qaida. The attack was originally planned for Jan. 3, 2000, when the USS The Sullivans was in the same port. 

*-- Sept. 9, 2001*
Two Moroccan men, posing as television journalists, kill themselves and Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance, at the alliance headquarters in the Panjshir Valley of Afghanistan. The killing of Massoud may have been the first part of the Sept. 11 attacks.

*--Sept. 11, 2001*
Three hijacked planes are flown into major U.S. landmarks, destroying New York's World Trade Center towers and plowing into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked plane crashes in rural Pennsylvania, its target believed to have been the U.S. Capitol. At least 3,044 people are killed. The death toll is nearly 10 times greater than any other terrorist attack in history and makes bin Laden, for the first time, a household name in the United States and the west.

*--Dec. 22, 2001*
Passengers and crew of an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami subdue Richard Reid after he attempts to light a bomb hidden inside his shoe. Some in U.S. intelligence community believe the bombing was last vestige of a larger plan that included the attacks on New York and Washington as well as bombings of other airliners over the oceans.

*--Jan. 31, 2002*
Pakistani militants behead Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi after holding him for several days. U.S. officials report there is evidence Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Al-Qaidas operations chief, may have played a role in his kidnapping and murder. Pearl is shown on a tape being beheaded. 

*-- March 17, 2002*
Islamic militants attack the Protestant International Church in Islamabad, killing five. Among those killed were Americans Barbara Green and her daughter Kristen Wormsley. Pakistani officials blame al-Qaida.

*--March 20, 2002*
Nine people are killed and 30 wounded in a car bomb explosion near the U.S. Embassy in Lima. Peru.

*--April 11, 2002*
A suicide bomber explodes a truck near the El Ghriba synagogue on the southern Tunisian island of Djerba, killing 14 Germans, five Tunisians and a Frenchman. Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's third youngest son, are believed behind the attack.

*--May 8, 2002*
A suspected suicide bomber in a car kills himself near a bus carrying 11 French navy experts and three Pakistanis outside the Sheraton Hotel in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi.

*--May 2002*
Moroccan police arrest three Saudi nationals who were allegedly planning attacks against U.S. and British warships in the Strait of Gibraltar. The men are arrested in May and claim to belong to the al-Qaida network. Moroccan officials say the suspects planned to sail a dinghy loaded with explosives from Morocco into the strait to attack the vessels.

*--June 14, 2002*
Another suicide car bomber detonates a bomb outside the U.S. consulate in Karachi, killing at least 11 people and wounding 45. No Americans is killed. The bomb is in the trunk of a moving car. The car's passengers, Pakistani nursing students, are unaware of the bomb.

*--Sept. 5, 2002*
Afghan President Hamid Karzai survives an assassination attempt when shots are fired into the presidential limousine. Karzai was on his way to a wedding celebration in Kandahar. He is not hurt but one of this U.S. bodyguards and the governor of Kandahar are wounded. The attack comes just after a car bomb exploded near two government offices in Kabul, killing 22 people.


*--Oct. 5, 2002*
A small boat sidles up to the SS Limburg, a French tanker off al-Mukalla, Yemen, and detonates a bomb. One crew member drowns and 24 are rescued.

*--Oct. 8, 2002*
Two U.S. Marines are killed in Kuwait in the early stages of the U.S. military buildup in preparation for the invasion of Iraq. The Marines were attacked on Faylaka Island, about 12 miles north of Kuwait City. 

*--Oct. 12, 2002*
Bombs explode in Kuta Beach nightclub district of Bali in Indonesia, killing 202 people and wounding hundreds. Five Americans are among the dead. A third bomb explodes near the U.S. Consulate in Sanur near Kuta, without causing casualties. Bombers later admit they expected many more American casualties. The bombing highlights the reach of al-Qaida.

*--Oct. 28, 2002*
A group of al-Qaida operatives kills U.S. AID worker Laurence Foley, 62, outside his home as he prepared to leave for work. Foleys attackers are arrested by Jordanian officials in December.

*--Nov. 28, 2002*
At least 15 people are killed in car bomb attack on hotel frequented by Israeli tourists in Kenyan port of Mombasa. On the same day, two missiles are fired at but miss an Israeli airliner taking off from the city. Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, mastermind of the 1998 embassy bombings, is sought by Kenyan officials in the attacks. 

*--May 12, 2003*
Suicide bombers in vehicles shoot their way into housing compounds for expatriates in Saudi capital of Riyadh so they can set off bombs. Some 35 people, including nine Americans, are killed. The attacks are a watershed for the Saudi government, which for years had thought al-Qaida would not attack the kingdom. As a result of the attacks, cooperation between the U.S. and Saudi governments grows rapidly. 

*--May 16, 2003*
Suicide bombers using cars or explosive belts set off at least five blasts in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 44 people, including 12 bombers, and wounding about 60. The deaths of 17 bombers in Saudi and 12 in Morocco suggest that al-Qaida is having no trouble recruiting suicide bombers.

*--June 7, 2003*
A suicide car bomber blows up a bus full of German peacekeepers, killing four and wounding 31 east of Kabul. An Afghan civilian and the bomber are also killed. 

*--Aug. 5, 2003*
A huge truck bomb kills 16 people and wounds 150 as it rips through Marriott Hotel in the Indonesian capital Jakarta. One foreigner, a Dutch businessman, is among the dead. 

*--Nov. 8, 2003*
In an attack reminiscent of al-Qaida's May attack, suicide bombers backed by gunmen enter a residential compound in Riyadh detonate two car bombs, killing 17, among them 5 children, and wounding 122. The attack uses vehicles disguised to look like police cars. U.S. and Saudi intelligence services had warned of a possible attack in the days before, even thwarting an attack in Mecca. 

*--Nov. 15, 2003*
At least 29 people are killed and scores were injured in near simultaneous explosions at two Istanbul synagogues, the first al-Qaida attack against Muslim Turkey, a NATO member and military ally of Israel. One blast occurs outside the Neve Shalom synagogue in the historic Beyoglu district in the heart of Istanbul. Another goes off close to another synagogue in the nearby neighborhood of Sisli. An small Turkish militant group aligned with Al-Qaida takes responsibility for the attack.


*--Nov. 20, 2003 *
The Istanbul headquarters of London-based bank HSBC and the British consulate in the Turkish city are targeted in similar attacks, with a total of 32 people killed in the twin blasts. The blasts replicate the twin attacks five days earlier against Istanbul synagogues in that both used drive by bombings, in which bomb-laden trucks are detonated by suicide bombers as the vehicle moves past the target. 

*--Dec. 4, 2003*
Maj. Gen. Abdelaziz al-Huweirini, the No. 3 official in Saudi Arabia's Interior Ministry and the kingdom's top counterterrorism official, is moderately wounded in an attack. Huweirini has worked closely with American officials. It is one of at least three such attacks or assassination attempts on Saudi intelligence service officials in December. No one has been killed in the attacks, which are in retaliation for the stepup in Saudi operations against al-Qaida.

*--Dec. 14, 2003*
Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff barely escapes death as his presidential motorcade travels over a bridge in Rawalpindi. The president is saved because of a jamming device on his car which scrambles signals on frequencies used to detonate remotely controlled bombs. The bomb detonates 30 seconds after the motorcade passes by. It is estimated to have weighed 1,000 pounds. The sophistication of the attack seems to indicate an inside job. Pakistani officials publicly blame al-Qaida for the attack, noting that 10 weeks earlier, Ayman Zawahiri called for Muslims to topple Musharrafs regime.

*--Dec. 25, 2003*
Two pick-up trucks packed with explosives ram into Pakistani President Musharraf's cavalcade from opposite sides of the road while he returns from Islamabad to his official residence at Army House in Rawalpindi. Musharraf was not hurt, but three vehicles at the tail end of the convoy are destroyed. Several policemen on security duty are killed and more than fifty others wounded. 

*--Feb. 6, 2004*
A suicide bomber detonates a bulk explosive at the deepest point in the Moscow Metro, killing 40 people. The attack is believed to be the work of a Saudi militant Abu Walid, whose financing of Chechen rebels has given him great power within the movement to free the breakaway Russian republic. The attack occurs near the Avtozavodskaya metro station and is supposedly a revenge attack for Russian troops atrocities against Chechen civilians in the town on Alda four years to the day earlier.

*--Feb. 27, 2004* 
A bomb onboard a Philippines ferry detonates, starting a fire that kills at least 100 people on their way from Manila to Bacolod in the central Philippines. The ferry was carrying around 860 people when two hours into the trip an explosion ripped the ferry, leading to a fire that quickly engulfed it. Abu Sayef, the al-Qaida affiliate, initially claims responsibility although the Philippines government denies the explosion was the result of a bombing. Later U.S. officials say the bombing was deliberate, not accidental.

--*March 11, 2004*
A co-ordinated bombing of trains in Madrid leaves more than 190 people dead and hundreds wounded. The attack, which leads to the unexpected fall of the pro-U.S. government of Anzar, is blamed on Morrocan terrorists with close links to al-Qaida. According to investigators, the attack was carried out not by al-Qaida or even an affiliate, but instead by radical Muslims who identified with al-Qaida and were led by a charismatic figure.

*--April 5, 2004 *
The mastermind of the March 11 attacks and five others blow themselves up in a Madrid apartment building, killing a special policeman as well. Explosives discovered in the building where the five killed themselves to avoid capture indicate they were plotting more violence and were linked to the failed bombing of a high-speed rail line Friday. Two or three suspects may have escaped before blast.

*--April 21, 2004 *
A suicide bomber kills five people, including two senior Saudi police officers and an 11-year-old girl, in an attack on a government building in Riyadh. An Islamic militant group, the al-Haramin Brigades, claims responsibility. 

*--May 1, 2004*
Attack on oil refinery in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia, in which gunmen target senior executive at the facility, partly owned by ExxonMobil. Five foreigners are killed, including two Americans. 

*--May 20, 2004* 
Saudi security forces clash with five suspected Islamic militants near Buraida, killing four and wounding the fifth. 


*--May 30, 2004*
Miilitants go on a shooting rampage at two oil industry office/residential compounds in the Persian Gulf coast city of Khobar, killing 22 people, mostly foreigners including one American.

*--Dec. 6, 2004*
Al-Qaida claims responsibility for an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, that left five non-American employees dead. 

*--Dec. 12, 2004*
A bomb exploded in a Philippine market packed with Christmas shoppers Sunday, killing at least 15 people and shattering a months long lull in terror attacks in the volatile southern Philippines, where Muslim rebels are active. 
The homemade bomb, concealed in a box, went off in the meat section of the market in General Santos, about 620 miles south of Manila. Officials immediately bolstered security in the predominantly Christian port city of 500,000 people, fearing more attacks.

*--Dec. 29, 2004*
Al-Qaida operatives launch an attack on Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Interior in Riyadh, hoping to topple the ministry's inverted pyramid structure.The attack fails with seven terrorists killed and one ministry officer seriously wounded.

--*June 20, 2004*
U.S. and Afghan authorities disclose the arrest of four Pakistani men on charges they were plotting the assassination of Zalmay Khalilizad, the US ambassador to Kabul.

*June 15, 2005*
Chechen rebels try to derail a train on its way from Grozny to Moscow. The train derails, but only 15 people are injured.

*July 7, 2005* 
Four suicide bombers detonate bombs on London Underground trains and a double-decker bus, killing 56 people in the worst terrorist attack ever in the UK and the greatest civilian loss of life since the blitz more than 60 years ago. The bombers are all British nationals and three are British born. Three are of Pakistani descent, the fourth a Jamaican who converted to Islam.

*July 21, 2005* 
Two weeks after the first Underground bombing, four other would-be suicide bombers attempt an identical attack on three trains and a bus. The bombs fail to go off and wound only one passenger. Within days, all four men are identified and arrested. Again, all are British nationals, this time of East African descent.

*July 23, 2005 *
Three bombs detonate in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh, killing 63, the worst terrorist attack in that countrys history. Two of the bombs detonated at resort hotels favored by Western tourists while the third went off in the citys marketplace. Egyptian authorities rounded up a number of suspects and later killed one of the countrys leading Islamists in a shootout.

*Aug. 19, 2005 *
Attackers fire Katushka rockets in the Jordanian port city of Aqaba, narrowly missing a U.S. Navy ship, and killing a Jordanian security man in a dockside warehouse. Two rockets are fired into the nearby Israeli port city of Eliat, causing minor damage.
Compiled by NBC's Robert Windrem, MSNBC research
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4677978/


MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2010 MSNBC.com




NEXT!!!


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 21, 2010)

Big P said:


> *--Sept. 11, 2001*
> Three hijacked planes are flown into major U.S. landmarks, destroying New York's World Trade Center towers and plowing into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked plane crashes in rural Pennsylvania, its target believed to have been the U.S. Capitol. At least 3,044 people are killed. The death toll is nearly 10 times greater than any other terrorist attack in history and makes bin Laden, for the first time, a household name in the United States and the west.


I ONLY read this part, and it implies that Bin Laden did this. So if he did, why isn't he wanted by the FBI for it? In fact, there is no official sanction taken against him for 911. Probably because he didn't do it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

un-fucking-believable


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> they didn't have an extra engine of the proper model laying around? so they just went with want they had? and what dropped it out of a balloon? how did that engine, even though some say it was the wrong engine, end up buried in that field? easter bunny? stop and EXPLAIN one thing please. just one thing.
> 
> "why would *they* use the wrong engine?"
> 
> ...






bump


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jan 21, 2010)

the right one wasn't in stock??


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 21, 2010)

Reptilian matter-transporters


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 21, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> I have always wondered why the leaders refused to testify under Oath?


 Nothing? Anyone? from any side, someone knowledgable in law and or politics? 

Does this happen all the time? I really have no idea?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 21, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> Nothing? Anyone? from any side, someone knowledgable in law and or politics?
> 
> Does this happen all the time? I really have no idea?


happens A LOT. 


double click it.
[youtube]jwQnTyGbHVA[/youtube]


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 22, 2010)

Thanks. I was unsure the difference, so that means bush/cheney took the fifth? Did the crashers refuse to show unless they were together and not under oath?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 22, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> Thanks. I was unsure the difference, so that means bush/cheney took the fifth? Did the crashers refuse to show unless they were together and not under oath?


i do not know. i do know it all comes back to who your lawyers are.


----------



## Big P (Jan 22, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> Thanks. I was unsure the difference, so that means bush/cheney took the fifth? Did the crashers refuse to show unless they were together and not under oath?


 

no they did not plead the fifth they just said they will not be under oath because of executive privilege and there are secerts they cannot speak about


and seeing the huge frothing of the deamoncrats who would have had lawyers badger them with differnetly worded questions and activly trying to trick them or to catch them in any type of slight perjery to be used for political purposes like they did to clinton


its like a gotcha game that they refused to expose themselves too because of good advise form thier lawyers


i would not walk into a den of wolves with my junk out either


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 22, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> the question is, "do _you_ really believe they couldn't have?"


I believe that it is possible, however I do not believe we are being told the whole truth.

Ok all you tough guys...go copy and paste something insulting...it will make you feel much better


----------



## Katatawnic (Jan 22, 2010)

Big P said:


> and seeing the huge frothing of the deamoncrats who would have had lawyers badger them with differnetly worded questions and activly trying to trick them or to catch them in any type of slight perjery to be used for political purposes like they did to clinton


The Democrats weren't the ones that went after Clinton; you got that one bassackwards.  I wouldn't put it past either side, though. Hypocrisy abound everywhere we go.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 22, 2010)

Clinton gave as good as he got with trickiness.

"It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is" ...  That's the mother of all evasiveness.


----------



## Katatawnic (Jan 22, 2010)

Clinton was the only one who thought he was actually being evasive.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 23, 2010)

Now that's an ego.

When a President (who is a lawyer by the way) lies to a grand Jury, the country is in trouble. 

Thank G*D that man is out of office. A low point in American history.

hey Kat, you might enjoy this....

[youtube]JahdnOQ9XCA[/youtube]


----------



## Katatawnic (Jan 23, 2010)

LOL!  Thanks, that was my first giggle of the day!


----------



## Tomacriderx (Jan 23, 2010)

It was the JEWS. Go to "Prothink.org".


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> how's this thread working for you?
> you've gotten nowhere.
> i'm not offended.


It's working out better than I thought ... your opinion of our progress is of no consequence ... glad to hear you are not offended.



natrone23 said:


> *7) Theory of Agency rather than Process.* For the conspiracist, there are no coincidences.


Of course you can't dispute the facts presented in this thread so you have no other choice but to side track the issue ... how's that working out for ya?



Big P said:


> 9/11 was not an inside job grow rebel, your swallowing this stuff hook line and sinker, somtimes you have to spit buddy


Say's you ... which means nothing ... but the FACT remains that most people don't buy the government lie ... the fact that you can't handle that is something you will have to work out .... 



Big P said:


> this video cannot be disproven


It already has, the NIST report was proven bogus long ago ... no one claims fire can't melt steel ... but there is scientific proof that the fire never got hot enough to melt steel ... so this is just more bogus info you love to use to side step the obvious ... how's that working out for ya? ... 


Big P said:


> I expect a full report on this in the morning GrowRe


Yeah ... and the report is ... you got nothing ... your info doesn't even have the source links and you are expected to be found credible ... sorry ... you're not ... 



fdd2blk said:


> you forgot to explain "the bowing', just like they said you would.


Bowing still causes resistance ... you forgot to explain that ... 



Big P said:


> why do you guys keep saying they did not find any wreckage thats a complete lie:


There are far too many lies ... that's why we will continue to push for a real investigation ... to bad you can't handle that ...


----------



## Keenly (Jan 24, 2010)

if its so big of a lie there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon or in the field in Pen. then lets see some pictures?


lets see some boeing debris big P, your going to have a hard time finding plane wreckage pictures at either location because, guess what, there was none

good luck, your going to need it..


i want to see, an engine, or a tail . wing section, or a passengers seat, or some luggage... show me SOMETHING that proves without a doubt it was a plane crash...

you cant, because such evidence does not exist...

inside job


----------



## Big P (Jan 24, 2010)

Keenly said:


> if its so big of a lie there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon or in the field in Pen. then lets see some pictures?
> 
> 
> lets see some boeing debris big P, your going to have a hard time finding plane wreckage pictures at either location because, guess what, there was none
> ...


 
keenly i posted the video showing the wreckage twice now, which also tears to shreds several other claims you guys been making

 if you cant read my posts its not my fault


Next!!!!


----------



## Big P (Jan 24, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> It's working out better than I thought ... your opinion of our progress is of no consequence ... glad to hear you are not offended.
> 
> 
> Of course you can't dispute the facts presented in this thread so you have no other choice but to side track the issue ... how's that working out for ya?
> ...


 

lol rebel took you a week to come up with that weak retort?


you cant reply to any point and i have disproven almost every won lol



your world in crumbling around you

NEXT!!!!!!!


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 24, 2010)

You can explain a coincidence away, but how do you explain away hundreds?


----------



## Tomacriderx (Jan 24, 2010)

prothink.org

The Jews did 9/11


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 24, 2010)

Keenly said:


> if its so big of a lie there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon or in the field in Pen. then lets see some pictures?
> 
> 
> lets see some boeing debris big P, your going to have a hard time finding plane wreckage pictures at either location because, guess what, there was none
> ...



if it was an inside job the first thing they would have done would have been to "PLANT DEBRI". and LOTS of it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 24, 2010)

No matter how many logical examples are given ... the "truthers" cannot admit it. Then their importance (self) would shatter.


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 25, 2010)

To add fuel to the fire, I remember in an issue of Nexus Magazine from around late 2000, in one section of the magazine called 'The Twilight Zone', where they publish harder-to-believe-than-normal conspiracy news , there was an interview with a 'secret agent' who said there was a major 'catastrophic event' being planned for Manhatten come late 2001.

Some will claim this as printed foreknowledge of 9/11 and will help solidify their beliefs, and others will see it as the one out of a million quack-job predictions that was right.

Anyway, it's a fairly accurate forecast of bygone events printed about a year before 9/11, more direct and actual than the Alex Jones 'prediction'.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> you cant reply to any point and i have disproven almost every won lol


you have not "disproven" anything. You simply posted utubes with theories .....just like we do. We have posted hundreds of coincidences and you have posted a couple of nice debates, and I thank you for that, but its far from being proof. I have plenty of questions you have not answered , plenty of video's you have not responded to, and that dont make you stupid , or crazy , it just means you do not know the answers and *none* of us do, so i think a real investigation is in order................it wont happen , but i still think it should. As long as you are reading the questions , then thats all we can do, so in the future if either of us is wrong we will remember why.
fdd my opinion on the plantin debris thing is that the media is far more powerful then a few pics of a plane or something.

wb


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> you have not "disproven" anything. You simply posted utubes with theories .....just like we do. We have posted hundreds of coincidences and you have posted a couple of nice debates, and I thank you for that, but its far from being proof. I have plenty of questions you have not answered , plenty of video's you have not responded to, and that dont make you stupid , or crazy , it just means you do not know the answers and *none* of us do, so i think a real investigation is in order................it wont happen , but i still think it should. As long as you are reading the questions , then thats all we can do, so in the future if either of us is wrong we will remember why.
> fdd my opinion on the plantin debris thing is that the media is far more powerful then a few pics of a plane or something.
> 
> wb



i do not understand your statement.


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> you have not "disproven" anything. You simply posted utubes with theories .....just like we do. We have posted hundreds of coincidences and you have posted a couple of nice debates, and I thank you for that, but its far from being proof. I have plenty of questions you have not answered , plenty of video's you have not responded to, and that dont make you stupid , or crazy , it just means you do not know the answers and *none* of us do, so i think a real investigation is in order................it wont happen , but i still think it should. As long as you are reading the questions , then thats all we can do, so in the future if either of us is wrong we will remember why.
> fdd my opinion on the plantin debris thing is that the media is far more powerful then a few pics of a plane or something.
> 
> wb


 
actually all the videos you guys are posting are theories with blatent lies and untruths in them and complete misleading and false statements too lol


all my posts expose your lies and false staments as what they are, lies untruths and quotes taken out of context.

with all the actuall proof right there to see read and even posts links to verfy the info!!! silly rabiits!!!! you must not even be looking at the videos I posted as they are clearly fact and sited with the sources


did you even watch the videos with the proof in them. im not going to keep posting them, they have proven you guys wrong to a point that is laughable

you seem to be the only one left trying to grasp to the precious lie you have held so dear through all these years

simply put just face it you guys were completley wrong and were laughable before I proved you wrong and still laughable but almost sad now that you have been proven wrong 100% with documented facts!!! but refuse to acknowledge the 100% proof & rebuttal 


you guys have been bamboozled into blaming your own house for somthing your niebors down the steet did to you and all your friends and family. 


you guys sold all of us out. I think the best thing you guys can do at this point is appoligize to all your fellow citizens you have hurt whom have lost loved ones in these attacks as well as all our brave millitray service personel who have been fighting for us and dieing for us all these years.










I think the word is Humility by friends.


its time you guys learned what that word means


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)




----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> lol rebel took you a week to come up with that weak retort?


Only to you and that doesn't mean shit ... 




Big P said:


> you cant reply to any point and i have disproven almost every won lol


Yeah I did ... you just ignore it like you do all the facts posted in this thread ... nothing new there ... 



Big P said:


> your world in crumbling around you
> 
> NEXT!!!!!!!


again ... nothing more than an unedumacted opinion .... next


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 25, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> No matter how many logical examples are given ... the "truthers" cannot admit it. Then their importance (self) would shatter.


Wow ...you really love to self project don't you ... well it's all you got ... so why not?


----------



## GrowRebel (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> actually all the videos you guys are posting are theories with blatent lies and untruths in them and complete misleading and false statements too lol


None of the videos you have been able to prove to be lies ... you just state they are then use reports that have been proven to be bogus ... how stupid is that ... plus I don't see you waving no $1000 check for proving the info in the one video was a lie ... more proof you simply blow shit out your ass ... 




Big P said:


> all my posts expose your lies and false staments as what they are, lies untruths and quotes taken out of context.


Nothing more than a fantasy on your part ... you haven't pointed out the so called false statements ... you just claim they are in general with no serious backing to your claims ... so keep fantasizing ... it's quite amusing really ... 



Big P said:


> with all the actuall proof right there to see read and even posts links to verfy the info!!! silly rabiits!!!! you must not even be looking at the videos I posted as they are clearly fact and sited with the sources


Unlike you we don't accept reports that have been proven bogus ... if you want to be stupid knock yourself out ... it doesn't effect us at all ... 




Big P said:


> did you even watch the videos with the proof in them. im not going to keep posting them, they have proven you guys wrong to a point that is laughable


Yeah I did ... that's how I know they are bogus ... anyone that uses the NIST report as proof is just plain 



Big P said:


> you seem to be the only one left trying to grasp to the precious lie you have held so dear through all these years


It's only a lie to the blind ... and that doesn't concern us at all ... 



Big P said:


> simply put just face it you guys were completley wrong and were laughable before I proved you wrong and still laughable but almost sad now that you have been proven wrong 100% with documented facts!!! but refuse to acknowledge the 100% proof & rebuttal


The only thing laughable is your statements ... 




Big P said:


> you guys have been bamboozled into blaming your own house for somthing your niebors down the steet did to you and all your friends and family.


And you are the blind ... trying to keep others as blind as you ... how's that working out for ya?




Big P said:


> you guys sold all of us out. I think the best thing you guys can do at this point is appoligize to all your fellow citizens you have hurt whom have lost loved ones in these attacks as well as all our brave millitray service personel who have been fighting for us and dieing for us all these years.


If anyone should apologize it's traitors like you that approval of and protect war crimes and war criminals ... when the truth is fully expose we won't forget your acts of treason ... 




Big P said:


> I think the word is Humility by friends.
> its time you guys learned what that word means


It's time you followed your own stupid advice ...


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i do not understand your statement.


well i dont believe that they had to plant anything , whoever's plan went down quite nicely for them. I am not sure about the pentagon deal because they wont show us , and i have not done my homework on that crash. Flight 93 , i whole heartingly believe there was no plane at all. Again something a few pictures would solve. flight 93 was not even in the records as "destroyed" like some of the other planes. Hell i would like to know how in the fuck all them folks on wall street KNEW them 2 airlines were gonna crash, but then never claimed their money? Did they feel bad for knowing too much? 
All i know is money can buy anything you want these days. (even a terrorist attack)


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> actually all the videos you guys are posting are theories with blatent lies and untruths in them and complete misleading and false statements too lol


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI&NR=1



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=related


now come on , i guess he just made all this up for ........????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6UgPODo







Big P said:


> now that you have been proven wrong 100% with documented facts!!! but refuse to acknowledge the 100% proof & rebuttal


I think anyone would agree that the shit you posted is *not "fact"* or 100% anything


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> well i dont believe that they had to plant anything , whoever's plan went down quite nicely for them. I am not sure about the pentagon deal because they wont show us , and i have not done my homework on that crash. Flight 93 , i whole heartingly believe there was no plane at all. Again something a few pictures would solve. flight 93 was not even in the records as "destroyed" like some of the other planes. Hell i would like to know how in the fuck all them folks on wall street KNEW them 2 airlines were gonna crash, but then never claimed their money? Did they feel bad for knowing too much?
> All i know is money can buy anything you want these days. (even a terrorist attack)



you didn't watch the videos.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you didn't watch the videos.


i watched all of them, that i am aware of ? I dont skim through the pages , i try to read and watch everything posted.
you should try that, and tell me why there were explosives in the building and it was not in the report? This man is more credible then any source you will find.


----------



## Keenly (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> keenly i posted the video showing the wreckage twice now, which also tears to shreds several other claims you guys been making
> 
> if you cant read my posts its not my fault
> 
> ...



i dont have the time to watch an entire video looking for a picture


obviously you failed to prove anything, as you can not even provide a simple picture proving a plane crashed in Pen. OR into the pentagon

you just kick and scream and cry lies because we talk about things you know you cant disprove and it gets you all worked up


ill say this again, show us 1 single picture of PLANE wreckage at either location

something that everyone knows CAME from a plane


but you cant, because it *does not exist*

you can keep with this "but i posted this" no, post a picture, with plane wreckage debris.... at either location


and ill say it again

you can not accomplish this feat because no such picture exists.... you can call me a liar all you want, and refuse to look at the evidence, eating those spoonfed mainstream media lies day in and day out


you call everything we say lies? its pretty obvious you have no knowledge of the events of 9/11



more proof you cant dispute, as physics *does not lie

*building 7 = controlled demolition, there is no other explanation for all, and i mean all, of the buildings structural supports to some how magically fail all at the same time...

larry silverstein himself said building 7 was a controlled demolition, so how are you going to try an invalidate this glaring piece of evidence?



[youtube]5akpnIFK-RM[/youtube]



lets here it P, did al qiada cut it down with boxcutters?


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 25, 2010)

Well, there they are.... the three stooges...


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 25, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Well, there they are.... the three stooges...


*still* nothing to add? still full of insults and thats all?


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> None of the videos you have been able to prove to be lies ... you just state they are then use reports that have been proven to be bogus ... how stupid is that ... plus I don't see you waving no $1000 check for proving the info in the one video was a lie ... more proof you simply blow shit out your ass ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

rebel just cuz you type out your lies it doesnt make them true


you cant refute shit i posted real evidence all you guys post are lies misinformation and quotes out of context i proved several of your claims as bogus and taken out of contex and you cant retort a single one except to say you dont trust one report

is that the best you got? really is that the best you fools can do!!!??


you guys hide behind piles of info and garbage, 80% is lies and the other 20% is misinformation lol


you are a lier a cheat and a hussler but but you hussle treason by spreading lies, to the gulible,

you still havnt answered me one question that was real, what are your life expiriances and what makes you have the views you do. why dont you answer that question lets dig really deep on where we both are coming from lets shine the light of day on it shall we.

i wanna know how you come to you opinions and your lifes view on current politics and your thoughts and why you think those things


i deal with people like you all day long, you will always be a lier & a manipulator


you guys are a dime a dozen


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 25, 2010)

damn Big P your so damn smart, i wanna be just like you when i grow up


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

FWIW Lier is spelled Liar, with an A.

Grow you and Big P are really going at each others throat here, can't we act a bit more civilized? I know its hard, but Even I blow shit out my ass, because thats the normal place it comes out, so not a very good insult. Now if you were to say you blow shit out your ears, well eeewwwww.


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

you guys are the ones acting like your smarter that everybody else like you guys figured out a new secret or somthing and we were too stupid to realize it


and i am tired of it so i am trolling this thread


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

If you took a 6 ton piece of aluminum, steel and titanium and smashed it into the ground would you expect to find it 6 miles away from where you smashed it? I mean that is basically what they are claiming for the PA crash right? the plane crashed so hard that gravity and the forces of physics were reversed and the impact actually caused the plane pieces to eject out of the crash site and land up to 6 miles away right? I find that so very very hard to believe, no other plane crash has ever had that happen. Why is 911 so full of 1 and only time it ever happened events?


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> If you took a 6 ton piece of aluminum, steel and titanium and smashed it into the ground would you expect to find it 6 miles away from where you smashed it? I mean that is basically what they are claiming for the PA crash right? the plane crashed so hard that gravity and the forces of physics were reversed and the impact actually caused the plane pieces to eject out of the crash site and land up to 6 miles away right? I find that so very very hard to believe, no other plane crash has ever had that happen. Why is 911 so full of 1 and only time it ever happened events?


Yeah I noticed that part too when I read it. The next day I was looking down the road at what 8 miles would be and it is very hard to fathom that. Probably a reporting error?


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> If you took a 6 ton piece of aluminum, steel and titanium and smashed it into the ground would you expect to find it 6 miles away from where you smashed it? I mean that is basically what they are claiming for the PA crash right? the plane crashed so hard that gravity and the forces of physics were reversed and the impact actually caused the plane pieces to eject out of the crash site and land up to 6 miles away right? I find that so very very hard to believe, *no other plane crash has ever had that happen.* Why is 911 so full of 1 and only time it ever happened events?


 

your kidding right?


these are the things im talking about

this statment is a complete lie- debri fields of plane crashes can spread much further than that 


i did a quik read most the far out debris were 1.5 miles away in the lake, the truthers have been falsly claiming the lake was 6 miles away another lie


the debris found 6 and 8 miles away were mostly light papery things and tiny body parts

but im sure the body parts were planted too


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> your kidding right?
> 
> 
> these are the things im talking about
> ...


Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine. 
Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

That's all from your irrefutable post. Paper, books, clothes, human remains, debirs, but no plane, just a crater. I understand that shit would fly to peices but all small enough to put into bags?


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.
> Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.
> 
> That's all from your irrefutable post. Paper, books, clothes, human remains, debirs, but no plane, just a crater. I understand that shit would fly to peices but all small enough to put into bags?


 

indian lake is only 1.5 or so miles from the crash site


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 25, 2010)

I know! crazy...


----------



## redivider (Jan 25, 2010)

big P is an idiot. he claims 'truthers' are delusional, but he'll defend 'birthers' claims that Obama is kenyan... 

he also has nothing to say about the crater. a empty crater, no plane. and i believe the crater was about the size of a suburban, but i could wrong. i thought commercial planes were a little larger than that.... anyways... don't tell that to 'P', he'll claim you to be a WACKO!!!


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

redivider said:


> big P is an idiot. he claims 'truthers' are delusional, but he'll defend 'birthers' claims that Obama is kenyan...
> 
> he also has nothing to say about the crater. a empty crater, no plane. and i believe the crater was about the size of a suburban, but i could wrong. i thought commercial planes were a little larger than that.... anyways... don't tell that to 'P', he'll claim you to be a WACKO!!!


 

hell naw divider are you kidding me lol


im a birther now!!! ha! 


ok just one more time for you little buddy there was plenty of debrie

plenty of eyes witnesses who watched the crash

even peices of our freshly carved brothers and sisters spread out everywhere and yes eyewitness found some of it themselves!!!



here you go smarty pants



[youtube]Jb-OFhxvEo8[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

heres the people who saw flight 93 crash with thier own eyes


im sorry i love youguys but you guys are dumbasses 



[youtube]kxsmhnZeM6w[/youtube]




witness says there was a fireball atleast 400 - 500 ft in the air!!! you think that could spread out some wreckage?




.


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

NEXT!!!!


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 25, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> The only thing laughable is your statements ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly.



wyteboi said:


> I think anyone would agree that the shit you posted is *not "fact"* or 100% anything


I will respectfully disagree here...the shit posted is 100%...bullshit.

[QUOTE="SICC";3706153]damn Big P your so damn smart, i wanna be just like you when i grow up[/QUOTE]

Me too!... 


<<<<insert something patriotic here to make everyone think I am right>>>>

The stranger that posted the "Jew" thing posted this originally, though do not let the context scare you away...This should be seen by EVERY CITIZEN...It is a little off topic, but should be viewed...when you have time to understand it. It is also 3.5 hours long and the video is of poor quality (buy the DVD then!) It was shown on PBS 10 years ago. After digesting how the monetary system works...one can see that all is not as it appears...and not gumballs and lollipops. Although you may understand fractional reserve banking...the history is important.

[youtube]EaHwg7xhueQ[/youtube]


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> [youtube]EaHwg7xhueQ[/youtube]


Its a good Video "Money Masters", lots of good info, but Bill Still the narrator and host bugs the shit out of me with his pointed gestures. Its like the newscaster who blinks 10 times per second during his whole newscast. really gets under my skin.


----------



## redivider (Jan 25, 2010)

a fireball 500 ft in the air would've created a huge fire with the biggest, blackest, most impressive tower of billowing smoke any of those people have ever seen. putting a fire of that magnitude out would've taken more than a few fire engines.

yet all you see is a small steaming crater. no fire, no smoke, nothing.

there's 2 people that claimed to see this huge fireball 500 feet in the air. 30 feet in the air gets you approx. 5 miles of visibility. 

that 'fireball' should've been seen for more than 50 miles, each way, if visibility is considered moderate, that number is a lot bigger with fair or better visibility. 9/11 2001 was one of the clearest days that part of the nation had that year. the tower of smoke would've been seen further.

any news chopper even close to the area would've seen the smoke, anyone in any building taller than 4 stories would've seen this from 20+ miles out....

yet only two people saw this.... i think they just wanted to be on TV.... just like the people that swear by god they've seen the Yetti, or the chupacabra, or the lochness monster......


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)




----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> heres the people who saw flight 93 crash with thier own eyes
> 
> 
> im sorry i love youguys but you guys are dumbasses
> ...


He also said it went in tail first, and didn't really know the difference between 45 degrees and 90 degrees. the other two said it went in nose first. A most credible witness!!


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 25, 2010)

Just like his irrefutable post about the debris, and distance, just saying your post was flawed too, hard to take it serious from any stance.


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

werent you guys the ones saying a second ago that there was no wreckage?




are you saying these people did not see a plane crashing?


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

FWIW when you burn up 20,000 gallons of jet fuel it tends to make a large amount of heat that can easily reach 500 feet in the air, but watch this video and tell me you see pieces being hurled miles away, you don't but sure as shit its a huge fireball.

[youtube]_EM0hDchVlY[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> FWIW when you burn up 20,000 gallons of jet fuel it tends to make a large amount of heat that can easily reach 500 feet in the air, but watch this video and tell me you see pieces being hurled miles away, you don't but sure as shit its a huge fireball.
> 
> [youtube]_EM0hDchVlY[/youtube]


what was his airspeed?


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 25, 2010)

I was just commenting on how I had a hard time fathoming debris being 6 miles away. Source being your de-bunking post.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)

[youtube]gL3ZAoZSntM[/youtube]


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

You know, looking at the video that BiG P provided, sure doesn't look like a huge fireball anywhere, the grass is as green around that little hole in the dirt as the day it grew, you don't see a huge swath of burned area like you do with every other plane crash into ground. Again, a miracle crash, another one time thing that will never happen again, and all on the same day. Even the Bermuda Triangle after 300 years doesn't have as much mystery as that one day in 2001.


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> [youtube]gL3ZAoZSntM[/youtube]



Great Vid, Crosswind landings by crabbing in your plane can be very scary for the pilot too. Because essentially, your flying the plane sideways.


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> You know, looking at the video that BiG P provided, sure doesn't look like a huge fireball anywhere, the grass is as green around that little hole in the dirt as the day it grew, you don't see a huge swath of burned area like you do with every other plane crash into ground. Again, a miracle crash, another one time thing that will never happen again, and all on the same day. Even the Bermuda Triangle after 300 years doesn't have as much mystery as that one day in 2001.


 

lol dude they have recovered 95% of the fucking plane lol




dudes who live in the area saw her crash, 


so you can sit here and pretend things in your make believe world but thats all it is

is make believe




im gonna stay in here to make sure you guys dont trick any other poor sap that wanders in here a little green behind the ears



NEXT!!!


----------



## redivider (Jan 25, 2010)

the airspeed when that plane crashed was 250kts or less.

planes flying at less than 10k feet are required to slow to 250kts or less. that rule goes until the planes reach 3000 feet, when planes are usually going 200 kts or less.

but as you can see there's a big tower of smoke. 

now, let's pretend like fuel that's been ignited doesn't get put out that easily.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/07/09/balzac-truck-fire.html

that's a overturned truck, with gasoline and diesel. 

when you read the link it says 



> It took crews two hours to bring the fire under control.


2 hours to put out the flames of 10k liters of gasoline. a 737-800 can carry around 26,000 liters of gasoline. i'm not familiar with what plane flight 93 was, but a 737-800 is usually reserved for regional flights within the US, so it's a good comparison point, it's also one of the newer models of the plane, and the largest in the 737 family. i just used the 737-800 cuz its the one i'm most familiar with...

so it should've taken fire crews around 2 hours to bring it under control, and a bit longer to actually put it out. yet when news crews showed up there was no fire. no waterlines around the floor, no firemen working their assess off to pick up the mess, and the crater wasn't full of water. i've seen firemen going at it with a small car fire, and they used at least 10,000 gallons of water, not all of it evaporates, some of it runs off, and in the middle of a field, i would expect one muddy mess....

but yeah, i'm probably just over thinking it...


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

Heres a photo of the crash site right before cleanup.








Heres one with vehicles so you can get an idea of just how small this wreckage is.


----------



## redivider (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> lol dude they have recovered 95% of the fucking plane lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no they didn't. they reported they recovered the pieces of the plane. i never saw the warehouse full of parts.

the NTSB prouds itself on showing the pile of debris from the crash to the news media. they even have dedicated 'puzzle' makers that recreate the plane... look up TWA flight 800, where they dug the plane from 600+ feet of ocean... look what happened to that wreckage. they rebuilt the plane from pieces recovered from the OCEAN FLOOR.

nothing like that happened here..... but no, that doesn't raise any red flags at all...

i'm just sayin the official story ain't complete... i don't know what happened.

i know 20 something people didn't bust into the cockpit and crashed that plane. the plane would've broken up in mid-air, if it was traveling at almost cruise speed like it's reported, at 6000 feet, and it made such extreme maneuvers like go down at 90 degree angle. that much i'm certain....


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

Why is the Fed's story always so different than everyone elses? this is a story by the first responders and it conflicts seriously with the official version. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06246/718359-84.stm

They all say they were pretty sure a plane had crashed, but there was very little evidence.


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

guys guys guys, there are many people who watched it crash into the field whats wrong with you guys?


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

I don't dispute something crashed in PA, i don't dispute all the buildings that came down, I don't dispute that something without wings hit the pentagon. But I totally dispute the government polished stories touted as truth to the masses. They recovered 95% huh? wow. Did they weigh it to come up with that percentage? And have they puzzled it back together again? You know like they do with all aircraft that crash and are recovered. i would really love to see it all put back together from pieces 2 inches long max.


----------



## Big P (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> I don't dispute something crashed in PA, i don't dispute all the buildings that came down, I don't dispute that something without wings hit the pentagon. But I totally dispute the government polished stories touted as truth to the masses. They recovered 95% huh? wow. Did they weigh it to come up with that percentage? And have they puzzled it back together again? You know like they do with all aircraft that crash and are recovered. i would really love to see it all put back together from pieces 2 inches long max.


 


dude there are even witnesses who says a plane crash into the pentagon i posted them already twice they clearly say and american airlines jjet crashed into the pentagon and it was going so fast he says it was like a cruise missle with wings


so your buddy's the 9/11 truthers decided just to use the last part of his eyewitness account where he says "it was like a cruise missle with wings"


but he really said clearly "i saw an american airlines jet blah blah blah


whatever anyway 


you fell for it hook line and sinker


NEXT!!


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

Big P said:


> dude there are even witnesses who says a plane crash into the pentagon i posted them already twice they clearly say and american airlines jjet crashed into the pentagon and it was going so fast he says it was like a cruise missle with wings
> 
> 
> so your buddy's the 9/11 truthers decided just to use the last part of his eyewitness account where he says "it was like a cruise missle with wings"
> ...


No I actually surmised that one myself, you see the wings have the most massive and densest part of the plane on them. THE ENGINES!! These 7,300 pound monsters did not make a single hole in the pentagon walls, thefore something does not add up!


----------



## Bernie Lomax (Jan 25, 2010)

Building #7. Nuf Said


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Great Vid, Crosswind landings by crabbing in your plane can be very scary for the pilot too. Because essentially, your flying the plane sideways.


no shit? sideways, huh? i would have never known.


----------



## FuZZyBUDz (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> No I actually surmised that one myself, you see the wings have the most massive and densest part of the plane on them. THE ENGINES!! These 7,300 pound monsters did not make a single hole in the pentagon walls, thefore something does not add up!



 UR FUKIN right!?!?!?!?!


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)

it is the "pentagon" ...

[youtube]25vlt7swhCM[/youtube]



she said "atomized".


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 25, 2010)

Atomized? But the Gubbermint said it found DNA evidence of every single person on board. You cannot find DNA evidence in atoms. Again the official story does not add up.

The maximum speed that Boeing 757-200 could possibly fly is 600 MPH , about 1/3 the speed of the fighter jet. the fighter jet is flying into a solid 100 foot thick brick of reinforced concrete. the jets engines are not made of wood you know. Titanium will not atomize no matter how many times you smash it into a masonry structure even in excess of 1000MPH.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 25, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Atomized? But the Gubbermint said it found DNA evidence of every single person on board. You cannot find DNA evidence in atoms. Again the official story does not add up.



that's it?


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 25, 2010)

It isn't nothing. I's like to see the puzzle pieces of all the atoms.


----------



## Big P (Jan 26, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> No I actually surmised that one myself, you see the wings have the most massive and densest part of the plane on them. THE ENGINES!! These 7,300 pound monsters did not make a single hole in the pentagon walls, thefore something does not add up!


 

how many times must i post the video before you clowns watch there are and were 136 witnesses who saw an american airlines jet fly right into the pentagon


thats right a whole 136 witness!!!




but yeah you right the engines didnt make holes and 136 people were lying about what they saw


[youtube]t1wQ2BJsgx0[/youtube]


im here all day gentlmen


NEXT!!!


----------



## Big P (Jan 26, 2010)

correction 136 saw the plane approching the pentagon

103 of those 136 saw the plane crash into the pentagon

26 siad it was an american airlines jet


7 siad it was a boing 757


39 others described it as a large jet

2 described it as a communter plane

1 described it as a coorprate jet

8 of the witnesses were pilots!!!!!!

1 was an air traffic controller

41 saw aircraft debries!!!

2 saw bodies still strapped into thier seats

0 saw a missle hit the pentagon




you guys as so gulibile for actually believing what idiot manipulators tell you on the internet


----------



## redivider (Jan 26, 2010)

Big P said:


> correction 136 saw the plane approching the pentagon
> 
> 103 of those 136 saw the plane crash into the pentagon
> 
> ...


have you heard the stories?? some of them claim the thing skidded across the ground before hitting the pentagon (yet the grass is untouched), others say it never touched the ground, some say it knocked over light poles, other say it was flying too high to have hit the light poles...

and the most compelling evidence is that the VIDEO evidence that was recorded, you know, something like this:

[youtube]mPSsdRSonpc[/youtube]

is for some reason confiscated within minutes of this happening.... never to be seen again.....


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 26, 2010)

WOW redivider your a truther too lol.


I actually thought you had a brain


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 26, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> No I actually surmised that one myself, you see the wings have the most massive and densest part of the plane on them. THE ENGINES!! These 7,300 pound monsters did not make a single hole in the pentagon walls, thefore something does not add up!



Wtf Do you think its a cartoon 


Likes its going to be a cutout of plane in the side of the building.lol



If it wasn't a the plane that hit the building what happened to all those people who got on that flight that morning.......Where the fuck did they go?
There families just making all this shit up? People family members are dead. Kids without a mother or father, brothers killed ect.

What do you think the goverment abducted these people at the airport after they kissed their husband and wives goodbye?


You guys sick sick fucking people.


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 26, 2010)

Big P said:


> indian lake is only 1.5 or so miles from the crash site


 Wouldn't most if not ALL of the pieces continued on the flight path, how do they also get moved laterally by 1.5 miles also. A body in motion tends to stay in motion unless affected by an outside force. what force caused all those pieces to deviate from the flight path? A 9 knot wind is not strong enough to carry metal 3 miles through the air. I can see paper and such being carried a long distance, but not airplane parts. I would be more inclined to believe the plane WAS shot down or had a bomb on board and broke up and scattered a large amount of debris over a wide area. I highly suspect a crash into the ground ejecting parts up to 8 miles away, doesn't follow the laws of physics.


----------



## Big P (Jan 26, 2010)

dude people saw it crash every last one of them the only reason you arnt trying to claim that the world trade center wasnt hit by planes is because its on video tape



also there are a zillion reasons why they would confiscate any footage of the plane crashing into the pentagon as it is still and highly secured facility and much can be gleaned from that kind of footage from our enemies


also there could have been some sort of counter measures defense missles at the pentagon or lack there of which they would not want to broadcast to the whole world

those are just 2 reasons off the top of my head and you can trust the government red tape can think of a lot more than me


why cant you just admitt when your wrong man? i been wrong a thousand times, i used to get played like a little bitch and know im better for it nothing wrong with being wrong, its just how you use it to your advantage and learn from it thats key


i worry about you guys if your growing dope


ignorence and gulibilty lead to prison or death depending on which fields you choose to play


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 26, 2010)

Really? You know what we think even if we don't think it? wow you must be Psychic. Ever think of making a living as a gambler. I mean if you know what eveyone elses thoughts are you should be able to make a killing. 

If you have been wrong a million times, how many times have you been right?


----------



## Keenly (Jan 26, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> Wtf Do you think its a cartoon
> 
> 
> Likes its going to be a cutout of plane in the side of the building.lol
> ...



your post is so laughable...


so where are the engines smart guy?

any pics or video of the engines at the pentagon? of course there isnt, because there was no plane.... there is video of the WTC getting hit there is no denying that, but there is no pentagon video...and why? at least 20 cameras were angled to see it, but it must be a plane because the media said so


wrong again 

its funny that the people against the truth movement are the ones who are citing things that dont exist/didnt happen


i like watching you guys dig yourselves into holes  keep it up


----------



## Big P (Jan 26, 2010)

Keenly said:


> your post is so laughable...
> 
> 
> so where are the engines smart guy?
> ...


 

dude not cuz the media said so because these people said so!!!!!! 


136 saw the plane approching the pentagon

103 of those 136 saw the plane crash into the pentagon

26 siad it was an american airlines jet


7 siad it was a boing 757


39 others described it as a large jet

2 described it as a communter plane

1 described it as a coorprate jet

8 of the witnesses were pilots!!!!!!

1 was an air traffic controller

41 saw aircraft debries!!!

2 saw bodies still strapped into thier seats

0 saw a missle hit the pentagon


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 26, 2010)

where did you get that info, a link would be nice


----------



## Big P (Jan 26, 2010)

im guessing people are just clicking on the video seeing the first few seconds and turning it off cuz i posted it a couple times


[youtube]t1wQ2BJsgx0[/youtube]


fast forward to 1:27 in the video


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 26, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> No I actually surmised that one myself, you see the wings have the most massive and densest part of the plane on them. THE ENGINES!! These 7,300 pound monsters did not make a single hole in the pentagon walls, thefore something does not add up!





fdd2blk said:


> it is the "pentagon" ...
> 
> [youtube]25vlt7swhCM[/youtube]
> 
> ...





NoDrama said:


> Atomized? But the Gubbermint said it found DNA evidence of every single person on board. You cannot find DNA evidence in atoms. Again the official story does not add up.
> 
> The maximum speed that Boeing 757-200 could possibly fly is 600 MPH , about 1/3 the speed of the fighter jet. the fighter jet is flying into a solid 100 foot thick brick of reinforced concrete. the jets engines are not made of wood you know. Titanium will not atomize no matter how many times you smash it into a masonry structure even in excess of 1000MPH.





you ask why there were no pieces found. 

i give you scientific video evidence of one possibility.

you change the direction of the question.

perfect.


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 26, 2010)

I can believe the atomized possibility, but then have to Not believe the official possibility. But the official possibilty is more likely, and around and around we go.


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 27, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> Wtf Do you think its a cartoon
> 
> 
> Likes its going to be a cutout of plane in the side of the building.lol
> ...


To be fair, the planes that hit the towers _did _leave a loose cutout plane shape.

And yes, I do know the Pentagon would have been reinforced and thus harder to make cutout impressions in, but the planes that hit the towers just sliced straight in, wings and all.

The _Truther_ theory, I believe, is that the plane and it's human cargo were landed and disposed of elsewhere. Not really a technical or moral problem if you can discreetly rig 3 buildings to collapse and murder 3000+ people.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 27, 2010)

Big P said:


> dude not cuz the media said so because these people said so!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 136 saw the plane approching the pentagon
> ...


Why in the fuck am i supposed to believe your utube? Where are your sources? I posted thousands of NAMES , and you guys said they were ALL not credible? So why would i believe 130 folks? 
IF you can find me 30 folks that had ANYTHING to do with 93 (friends *or* family), then i will give up on the 93 subject and move on. i dont mean a bunch of confused folks either , so it has to be after 911. Fuck i bet you cant find one.


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 27, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> Wtf Do you think its a cartoon
> 
> 
> Likes its going to be a cutout of plane in the side of the building.lol
> ...


What families? Making what up? Can you show me where "all those people" got on a plane that morning?
There is a VERY few family members that do buy the official story and those are the ones that received calls from the plane.
I am working WITH the family members of 911 not against, and that is why i am here.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> What families? Making what up? Can you show me where "all those people" got on a plane that morning?
> There is a VERY few family members that do buy the official story and those are the ones that received calls from the plane.
> I am working WITH the family members of 911 not against, and that is why i am here.


show me YOUR proof. where did you come up with this? you won't except others info, where do you get yours?


----------



## Keenly (Jan 27, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> What families? Making what up? Can you show me where "all those people" got on a plane that morning?
> There is a VERY few family members that do buy the official story and those are the ones that received calls from the plane.
> I am working WITH the family members of 911 not against, and that is why i am here.



he doesnt realize the founders of the truth movement were family members


seriously if people would just watch loose change, and get all the information at once... instead of getting it piece by piece, they become overwhelmed with the staggering amount of coincidences and cover ups, and its a slap in the face of how obvious it is....


Big P your little list of people is already invalid because your telling a lie, your "0" saw a missle is a lie, because the news agencies themselves, on day one, were reporting people thought a missle hit the pentagon, this video is a direct contradiction to your statement...

[youtube]lY-gmzxnaVs[/youtube]

here is a little slip up by one of the 9/11 commissioners, saying a missle hit the pentagon, and very quickly realizing his mistake changing it to plane, im not buying it, clips like 15 seconds long

[youtube]EA5AmFpQlJA[/youtube]


colin powell himself, when referring to the 9/11 attacks, talked about "3 planes and a missle attack" little slip on his part there


there has never been any evidence of the 4 aircraft engines at the pentagon...

so, according to the government and media lies, 4 8 foot tall, 6 ton titanium engines just vaporized

same with all the bodies on the plane, all the luggage (there WAS a destination, wasnt there?  ) and to top it all off, not one single seat....

a boeing 747 has (depending on the model) 416 seats, or 524 seats, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM must have gone into the twilight zone, because there was not one single passenger seat found in the pentagon wreckage


im going to LOVE how you guys will attempt to discard this information

im expecting something like "everyone knows the passengers had to stand on this flight cause there were no seats" good luck


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

guess it's easier to just make 300 people disappear? forever?


----------



## Keenly (Jan 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> guess it's easier to just make 300 people disappear? forever?



what 300 people would that be exactly? according to the mainstream media there were only 64?

but they must have disappeared, after all, no bodies... so that leaves 2 options... 

A) no plane

B) disappearing corpses / seats / wings / engines / tail / windows


did you know? the plane that "hit" the pentagon, tail number N644AA, is still in use today? interesting


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

Keenly said:


> what 300 people would that be exactly? according to the mainstream media there were only 64?
> 
> but they must have disappeared, after all, no bodies... so that leaves 2 options...
> 
> ...



sorry, my mistake. (see how easy it is?) 

there were 2 planes that never existed though. do you happen to have those #'s? including flight crew. that's a pretty big group of people to hide. forever. and then to get their families to go along with it, or not.

wait, they aren't dead because they weren't on the plane so why would family members be the ones wanting an investigation?

so many questions.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

could you imagine how much money you could make if you were to be "the whistle blower"? sooner or later someone will have to talk about it. out of *ALL* the people *LYING*, one of them has got to crack. sooner or later. no?


----------



## Keenly (Jan 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so many questions.




indeed isnt there? why is it so hard to get an answer to them?


did you know that 70% of the victims families questions were never answered by neither the 9/11 commission or our government leaders?


----------



## Keenly (Jan 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> could you imagine how much money you could make if you were to be "the whistle blower"? sooner or later someone will have to talk about it. out of *ALL* the people *LYING*, one of them has got to crack. sooner or later. no?



havent you seen what happens to some one of high public stature comes out in favor of the 9/11 truth movement?

public humiliation by the media as well as almost always a dishonorable discharge from their position


this guy is no government official but this is an example of what the media would do to such person


attack credibility, insult, fire

[youtube]2IwIRNM5noY[/youtube]


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 27, 2010)

FDD imagine how much money you can make, even Big P and CJ, if you can would just go out and prove the truthers wrong!!

you guys would be fucking hero's!!

USA! USA! USA!


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

Keenly said:


> havent you seen what happens to some one of high public stature comes out in favor of the 9/11 truth movement?
> 
> public humiliation by the media as well as almost always a dishonorable discharge from their position




you never gave me an answer. it's your story, help me understand.


how many people are "missing" off those 2 flights? and how have they been kept SILENT?


2 very easy questions to answer. can you? 
the first question is simple a "FACT" and there should be NO dispute. if you have that number, .....


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 27, 2010)

They have no answers, only questions....

The answers have already been provided, in spades.

Denial is no way to go through life.

The Pentagon is the strongest building on earth and was specifically designed to be so. The WTT's were NOT ... that's the difference.


----------



## Big P (Jan 27, 2010)

yeah keenly you must be the densest person on earth i not only showed you a live video of 1 witness,

 where they took the missle thing out of context but i showed you a list of the 

136 witnesses

EACH OF THIER QUOTES


AND THEIR FIRST AND LAST NAMES!!!! 

if thats not enough info for you to confirm they exist then you are a complete beep

im sorry to say. other than pesonally tracking these people down and flying them to you and having them tell you in thier own words what happend


i bet even then your thick head would still be in denial

save the fact that several people who went into rescue mode personally saw and picked up body parts, one guy found a whole arm some saw passengers still in thier seats, even donald rumsfeld got in the rescue effort and even had a peice of the plane displayed on his desk where he showed it to the guy interviewing him

do you even realize how many local police and fire officials would be on the scene!!! you clearly have not thought things through


dont you think these workers would have said if they did not see and clean up bodies as per the offcial story man??


im serious man i hope you are still in your younger years you really have a lot to learn and im not saying that to be a dick

cuz me likes you keens, you always cool.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

i really like most of those who post in this thread, hence my concern.


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 27, 2010)

I dont think anyone is takin anything personal here, just a heated debate is all, were all friends here


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

shameless plug, ... http://www.stickam.com/faded_glassworks


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> show me YOUR proof. where did you come up with this? you won't except others info, where do you get yours?


I read alot. Thats my source , what i read. I already said i cant prove shit, and the fact that me's and you's know more about this subject then all of the commission calls for a real investigation.
I'll start with reading a report from AP then it will lead me all the way to utubes. Just like you guys i only take in what i really believe is true.
I have never heard of or read about a family member other then the ones already stated, that does not mean i am correct in saying they do not exist but that is what i believe period. (until you guys show me different and that video is a good start but in my opinion its a "cjmade" video to make people like me look "crazy" and i know that will be coming more in the future.)


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

wow. 



i'm practicing my turkey calls, ...


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 27, 2010)

Big P said:


> yeah keenly you must be the densest person on earth i not only showed you a live video of 1 witness,
> 
> where they took the missle thing out of context but i showed you a list of the
> 
> ...


When I did that (real names not utube ones), they were all uncredible, so yes your ONE video has been watched and it seems bullshit to me? You just skip through this whole thread eh? You should try to read more. why are you so concerned with us for asking questions? How is that hurting you one bit?


----------



## Big P (Jan 27, 2010)

put on glen beck right now on fox news just watch 1 segment tell me what you think


----------



## wyteboi (Jan 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> wait, they aren't dead because they weren't on the plane so why would family members be the ones wanting an investigation?
> 
> so many questions.


again, you will not find any family members except the ones in wtc. You would think them folks would be mad as fuck at me and the others that think this ?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

wyteboi said:


> again, you will not find any family members except the ones in wtc. You would think them folks would be mad as fuck at me and the others that think this ?


you already stated you have no basis for your "opinions".


good day sir. 

 http://www.stickam.com/viewMedia.do?mId=187409747


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 27, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Its a good Video "Money Masters", lots of good info, but Bill Still the narrator and host bugs the shit out of me with his pointed gestures. Its like the newscaster who blinks 10 times per second during his whole newscast. really gets under my skin.


He is trying to be like Bob Dole...The pen thing bugs me a little also, but the info is needed!



Big P said:


> dude there are even witnesses who say[...]


¡Dios Mios! ¡Mira, Mira...aya El Chupacabra!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Big P said:


> i worry about you guys if your growing dope
> 
> 
> ignorence and gulibilty lead to prison or death depending on which fields you choose to play


What kind of pot head...much less someone who cares enough to grow their own refer to Cannabis as "DOPE"?...interesting final commentary.



fdd2blk said:


> you ask why there were no pieces found.
> 
> i give you scientific video evidence of one possibility.
> 
> ...


If the plane "atomized" the energy released would limit the damage created to the target...the force diagram has a nearly equal force in the opposite direction of the momentum...as I think has already been pointed out, would also make recovering all of the passengers DNA...difficult to say the least.



fdd2blk said:


> wait, they aren't dead because they weren't on the plane so why would family members be the ones wanting an investigation?
> 
> so many questions.


Family members of the victims of WTC 1 and 2...who were not on any plane.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

so there no family members from the other 2 planes who care? oh wait a minute, duh. they are all still alive. 


you guys are so full of shit.


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so there no family members from the other 2 planes who care? oh wait a minute, duh. they are all still alive.
> 
> 
> you guys are so full of shit.


I never said that. Not that I have gone looking, but the early
*TRUTHERS* that I heard, that were family members, were of victims who worked at WTC...And I am pretty sure that the only people who survived those two planes...were actually the _Terrorists_

The 9/11 Commission...is full of shit.


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 27, 2010)

Big P said:


> , even donald rumsfeld got in the rescue effort and even had a peice of the plane displayed on his desk where he showed it to the guy interviewing him


Donald Rumsfeld was allowed to keep federal evidence of a murder scene? Really? Got any proof of this?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 27, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Donald Rumsfeld was allowed to keep federal evidence of a murder scene? Really? Got any proof of this?


soooo many questions. lol 

inside job


----------



## mexiblunt (Jan 28, 2010)

Some people like souvenirs. Some call them trophys.


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 28, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> T
> The Pentagon is the strongest building on earth and was specifically designed to be so. The WTT's were NOT ... that's the difference.


If that were true, then why does the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors collapse after 1 hour? The plane only took out the first floor.







this pic is minutes after the impact, notice the intensely burning fireball. Notice there are NO skid marks on the ground, See those big spools of wire? Still in place sitting there, no way a huge jet liner flew 2 inches off the ground all the way across the lawn and impacted the first floor, all the while it did this with no wings because there is NO evidence of wings impacting the wall, the wings carry 75% of the fuel load, notice the only fire is in the hole, no big fires extending 80 feet from each side of the hole.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 28, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> If that were true, then why does the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors collapse after 1 hour? The plane only took out the first floor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


are you fucking blind?

not even gonna bother.


----------



## Big P (Jan 28, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Donald Rumsfeld was allowed to keep federal evidence of a murder scene? Really? Got any proof of this?


 

my only proof is seeing it with my own eyes but obivously not enough proof for you guys 






Posted 3/13/2004 1:01 AM


















































*Rumsfeld, senior FBI official took Sept. 11 souvenirs* 

WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; The Justice Department investigation that criticized FBI agents for taking souvenirs from the World Trade Center site also found that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a high-ranking FBI official kept items from the Sept. 11 attack scenes. 

The final investigatory report said the Justice Department inspector general confirmed Rumsfeld "has a piece of the airplane that flew into the Pentagon." The Associated Press obtained a copy of the report Friday. 

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said Friday night that Rumsfeld has a shard of metal from the jetliner that struck the Pentagon on a table in his office and shows it to people as a reminder of the tragedy Pentagon workers shared on Sept. 11, 2001. 
"He doesn't consider it his own," Di Rita said, adding the piece is on display for the Pentagon. "We are mindful of the fact that if somebody has an evidentiary requirement to have this shard of metal, we will provide it to them." 

The Justice Department investigation also collected testimony that Pasquale D'Amuro, FBI Director Robert Mueller's executive assistant director for terrorism until last summer, asked a supervisory agent to "obtain a half dozen items from the WTC debris so the items could be given to dignitaries." 

Six items &#8212; none needed as evidence &#8212; were gathered and sent to D'Amuro, the report said. 
D'Amuro, now the head of the FBI's New York office, told investigators that "he asked for a piece of the building as a memento" and that he was aware that agents had taken such items from other terrorist crime scenes over the years. 

He said he got a piece of the building in June 2003 but denied asking for items for dignitaries. D'Amuro left the following month from FBI headquarters as Mueller's top terrorism official to become an assistant director in charge of the New York office. 
Joe Valiquette, a spokesman for the New York FBI office, declined to comment Friday. 

The report also divulged that FBI agents' removal of items like a Tiffany crystal globe from the World Trade Center rubble gutted a criminal case the bureau was building against a Minnesota contractor that had taken a fire truck door from the same rubble. 
Prosecutors told the FBI they "might not indict the crime regarding the fire truck door due to government misconduct involving the Tiffany globe," the report said. 

Surviving family members were surprised by the latest news. 
"Unbelievable," said William Doyle, whose son was killed in the World Trade Center. 
"Everybody has things that they probably should not have from the World Trade Center site," added Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son died in the towers. "I'm sure there's probably all kinds of people that have all kinds of artifacts." 
The Justice Department's report has not been officially released, but heavily deleted versions of the report began circulating around Washington last month showing 13 FBI agents had taken rubble, debris and items such as flags and a Tiffany crystal globe paperweight. 

The bureau announced it was banning agents from taking items from crimes scenes, but no agents were being charged with crimes because the bureau did not have such a policy during the Sept. 11 investigation. 
The full report obtained by the AP divulges some senior FBI managers were among those cited for having authorized or asked for mementos from the World Trade Center site. 

In addition to D'Amuro, the report stated the now-retired head of the New York FBI office, Barry Mawn, asked and received an American flag and a piece of marble from the debris before his retirement. 

The report also states the special agent in charge of the FBI's office in Knoxville, Tenn., Joe Clark, contacted FBI officials in New York requesting a piece of debris to display in an exhibit dealing with hate crimes. A 100-pound piece of steel was sent to Clark, the report said. 

The report stated FBI agents who worked in New York repeatedly expressed their disgust that visiting agents and supervisors would seek souvenirs from the terrorist attacks. 

Many interviewed regarded the debris as sacred, the reported stated, "and were disgusted by the fact that anyone would want to take items, including pieces of the building which were contaminated with blood and human body parts." 
The report discloses that among the items taken, agents had cut World Trade Center security patches from the sleeves of shirt pieces found in the rubble. 

One New York agent who worked on the evidence recovery team "stated it was a ghoulish prospect that anyone would want things from a crime scene where people have died," the report said. 
Two senior FBI lawyers from New York told the investigators they were never consulted by FBI managers about the propriety of taking items, and they would have objected. 

The FBI New York office's ethics officer, Steven Carolotto, "emphatically stated FBI agents could not profit from working any location" and the "calamity of the event was inconsistent with the taking of items for personal use." 
Investigators also stated that they found evidence that the agent who ran the recovery effort at the landfill, Richard Marx of Philadelphia, gave "inconsistent" answers during the investigation after several colleagues claimed he had given them permission to take items. 

Last summer, Marx was subjected to a lie detector test in which he said he did not recall giving items to Mawn, did not recall giving permission for evidence recovery agents to take items and insisted he was completely true when he gave an affidavit to the investigation. 

"The results of the examination indicated that Marx was deceptive in his responses to all three questions," the Justice report said. FBI officials declined to comment about Marx's conduct.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 28, 2010)

Whitey only takes in what he thinks is true ... uhh , please don't include "just like you guys" in there...

That's exactly backwards and NOT the way you make conclusions. You don't get to the conclusion first and then work from there.

Don't be emo about issues. Get the most reasonable explanations of events and cross reference... then start to draw conclusions.

9/11 conspiracy just doesn't hold up ... unless you want it to ... despite the evidence.


----------



## Big P (Jan 28, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> If that were true, then why does the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors collapse after 1 hour? The plane only took out the first floor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

why would there be marks on the ground since the plane never touched the ground before impact?

you even contradict you own post later by saying the plane flew 2 inches from the ground

an eye witness clearly states and is officially quoted saying if he did not duck the planes wing would have taken off his head


you seem to conviniantly pretend like there were not 136 documented witnesses to this incident

just shows how totally unobjective you are about this issue.


and lastly there are big fires spread across where the wings were you see all that super thick smoke, as pot heads we can all agree only grease and fuel fires have such thick black smoke


we can all also agree that the majority of the fuel held by the wings will be in the wide part of the wings close to the fuselage rather than and the skinny ends of the wings.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 28, 2010)

mockingbird131313 said:


> Two questions about the Pentagon remain unanswered for some people:
> 1. What happened to the building girders?
> 2. What happened the fuselage of the Boeing 757?
> 
> ...






this is post #30 of this thread.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 28, 2010)

Yes, this thread failed way way back, and yet.... they keep on with the delusional talk.


I'm thinking of investing in tin foil stock...... these guys must be buying it all up.


----------



## Big P (Jan 28, 2010)

i think its some sort of liberal complex


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 28, 2010)

Like I said 456 pages ago.... this is all political, not science, and that's why they insist on staying blind to the truth.

Bush is gone.... it's okay to let it go. No one cares anymore....


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 28, 2010)

This has nothing to do with political viewpoints IMO. Im a conservative, definitely not a socialist or a Democrat, maybe you could call me a classical liberal (Jeffersonian), but you certainly can't call me a lefty.

My biggest question about the pentagon incident is this:
Why didn't the whole building crumble to dust? Its not like its made of steel or anything.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 28, 2010)

entry done by the "757"





Notice the damage made an odd "U" shape which extends way passed the exit hole.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 28, 2010)

Wings and tail section extend beyond the area of the damage

Someone please explain to me how that big of a plane... fits into that hole?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 28, 2010)

i don't see shit.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i don't see shit.


EXACTLY!

You're catching on! lol


----------



## Big P (Jan 28, 2010)

jfgordon1 said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> You're catching on! lol


 

loooooooool pricless dude your pics are not showing up lol





theres been 136 people who watch the plane hit the penatagon


2 people were found still in thier seats!!!!!!






open your brains motherfuckers!!!!


----------



## jfgordon1 (Jan 28, 2010)

Big P said:


> theres been 136 people who watch the plane hit the penatagon


 Nobody believed us "truthers" when we gave witnesses in the wtcs seeing/ getting exploded on the main floor.. getting skin get ripped off their flesh. 

Guess witnesses are only good if it's on your side?


> 2 people were found still in thier seats!!!!!!


 There was nothing even left of the plane.... the crash put the airplane to dust... but left bob and emily in their seats? doubt it






> open your brains motherfuckers!!!!


right back at ya 

edit: can't see the pics?.... straaaaange


----------



## Big P (Jan 28, 2010)

jfgordon1 said:


> Nobody believed us "truthers" when we gave witnesses in the wtcs seeing/ getting exploded on the main floor.. getting skin get ripped off their flesh.
> 
> Guess witnesses are only good if it's on your side?
> 
> ...


 

its a fact homie, if your too ignorent to read the multiple posts

the first and last names of the eye witness SOME WHICH ARE ON VIDEO lol you would know for yourself


fact remains that 2 people were still strapped in thier plane seats inside the wreckage of the pentagon. these hundreds of photos of the scene with wreckage 

I guess you didnt have the time to look, but makes you unaware about the situation you are so wrong its comical


this is a fact you are just wrong, gulible and ignorent.


this is all fact


NEXT!!!!


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 28, 2010)

Big P said:


> its a fact homie, if your too ignorent to read the multiple posts
> 
> the first and last names of the eye witness SOME WHICH ARE ON VIDEO lol you would know for yourself
> 
> ...


Got a coroners report or something besides hearsay to back up the "Bodies found still strapped into seats" or do you think possibly since 125 office workers were killed that it could just be them in their office chairs? When you are 500 feet away its probably hard to tell.


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 28, 2010)

Whoa Whoa, wait a second, did Big P just say "homie"

LOL 

and yea jeff all i see is TRIPOD.COM on those pics


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 29, 2010)

If ur not a Bush hater and you believe this nonsense... then you have truly been the most naive. i can understand the folks who are on the political left and cannot stand the fact that their foreign policy guru (Clinton) got all those ppl killed. They are of course incorrect, but i understand the motives.


----------



## Big P (Jan 29, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Got a coroners report or something besides hearsay to back up the "Bodies found still strapped into seats" or do you think possibly since 125 office workers were killed that it could just be them in their office chairs? When you are 500 feet away its probably hard to tell.


 

dude theres many photos of the rescue much closer than the 500 feet your truther buddies only wanna show you


ok heres one to start:


there a lot of people there huh? they were all in on it right? cuz they were sent there to pic up the pieces and investigate, but they all noticed there was no plane and not a single one of them said anything !!!!!!!! right?








ok if you notice the plane crashed with 1 wing tilting down almost hitting the ground, that means the other wing was tilted up. from the picture above you can see a high diagonal charmark from the wing pointing hi on the left and the low diagonal charr mark on the right from the other wing pointing down. then in the center you see the hole the plane body went through which then later collapes into a larger hole. 









hey what that up there smart guy???? looks like a plane to me










ok here another little piece 













































and here is more wreckage of the plane including luggage of the passengers












any questions???????????



NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## natrone23 (Jan 29, 2010)

Oh you didn't Big P, They shot a missle in their.......and and and then a bunch I guys came in iwith truck loads of plane debris, dead bodies, luggage scattered all that debris there and then ran off lol............nobody saw them though.......these guys are gooood.


You see that morining when all those people where supposed to get on that plane, You know after they kissed there loved ones goodbye they were kidnapped murdered by secret agents, mangled and torn there bodies to shreds and burnt there body parts and then transported all these body parts, luggage, plane parts, via semi truck and dumped all this stuff at the pentagon simultaneously as the missle struck the pentagon.


----------



## Big P (Jan 29, 2010)

natrone23 said:


> Oh you didn't Big P, They shot a missle in their.......and and and then a bunch I guys came in iwith truck loads of plane debris, dead bodies, luggage scattered all that debris there and then ran off lol............nobody saw them though.......these guys are gooood.
> 
> 
> You see that morining when all those people where supposed to get on that plane, You know after they kissed there loved ones goodbye they were kidnapped murdered by secret agents, mangled and torn there bodies to shreds and burnt there body parts and then transported all these body parts, luggage, plane parts, via semi truck and dumped all this stuff at the pentagon simultaneously as the missle struck the pentagon.


 



lol right


too bad they didnt have any of us there who could have told them it would have just been easyer to crash the plane into the pentagon rather than complicate the conspirosy


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 29, 2010)

wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to just believe the hijackers were government agents?


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 29, 2010)




----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 29, 2010)

fuckin' commie bastards. 

maybe if you didn't wash everything in hot water. lol


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 29, 2010)

lol just trying to get a rise outa you guys


----------



## Big P (Jan 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to just believe the hijackers were government agents?


 

thats what i never got, which makes this whole this a real joke

they say the planes that hit the world trade were suicidal government agents or maybe remote controlled? or what ever their plane excuse it for the world trade


but then they try to pass a convoluted story how the other 2 attacks were not really planes?


lol its like if you had 2 remote controll planes to fly into the world trade

why would you use missles for the other 2 attacks and stage them like plane crashes lol

its gonna be so funny when the gov releases more footage of the pentagon crash 

they say they have 85 videos of the pentagon incident showing the plane approching or crashing into the pentagan

this statement is on record as stated by the FBi or other agency i cant remember which one

the pentagin it a highly top secret facility and they do not want to show its vonrabilites


its like if somone broke into your house. would you want everyone to know how they did it what the weak entry points to your house may be?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 29, 2010)

they don't understand what "the pentagon" is. someone just compared it to a skyscraper. lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 29, 2010)

Yes indeed, the best conspiracies are infused with simplicity.

The sheer complexity of events that had to happen to make the 9/11 "truther" crud seem plausible is in the extreme.


----------



## Big P (Jan 29, 2010)

heres a pic of binladins scank of a sister














hey they look like the brady bunch








one of binladins good brothers
















teenie bopper osama when he was younger


















this man is your enemy,


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 29, 2010)

LOL

so funny, F bin laden too

His sister is probably hairy as fuc, damn skank


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 29, 2010)

Big P, where did you get that PIC?? 

That's clearly the cast from the 70's show .......


----------



## Keenly (Jan 29, 2010)

have you ever heard of compartmentalization? 


when you learn what it is, the "bajillions of people would have had to be in on it" becomes an invalid argument

pyramid structure

oh and P, you pictures of "plane: wreckage? not single one of your images is conclusive proof that the wreckage is from a boeing 747, your engine picture is WAY to small to have been from a boeing


that round brown metal thing with the circular holes in it is not part of any boeing aircraft, loose change already covered that, but you never watched it, or you would know that


how can you people debate something without first looking at both sides of the story?


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 29, 2010)

Thank goodness for compartmentalization.... we almost got you to think logically ... good escape.


----------



## Big P (Jan 29, 2010)

Keenly said:


> have you ever heard of compartmentalization?
> 
> 
> when you learn what it is, the "bajillions of people would have had to be in on it" becomes an invalid argument
> ...


 
your loose change people are liers


and they make money off thier lie a lot of it


loose change was origianlly written as fiction story but the writers of loose change

 and somwhere along it evolved, and they began claiming it was real


look it up for yourself.


maybe you are just meant to think the way you think


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 29, 2010)

It takes a certain kind of naivete to buy into it.


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 29, 2010)

Big P said:


> heres a pic of binladins scank of a sister
> 
> this man is your enemy,


if Osama was behind all of this, how come the FBI does not want him for the crime? Hell they don't even list anything from 911 as being his responsibility. C'mon Big P, misspell some words and tell us why that is please.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 29, 2010)

i saw an interview of dudes who did loose change. they themselves said some of their shit was wrong. this is why there is a "2nd" edition. 



i can't believe everything these people believe is based on one movie.


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 29, 2010)

Hey P...how about some of the fake bin laden pics???

And where the hell did the grammar and spelling police go?


----------



## NoDrama (Jan 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i saw an interview of dudes who did loose change. they themselves said some of their shit was wrong. this is why there is a "2nd" edition.
> 
> 
> 
> i can't believe everything these people believe is based on one movie.



I haven't even seen the movie, Have you?


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 29, 2010)

Big P said:


> dude theres many photos of the rescue much closer than the 500 feet your truther buddies only wanna show you
> 
> 
> ok heres one to start:
> ...


I'm sorry but that is preposterous.

All official doctrine on the Pentagon plane refers to it's nearly horizontal slightly left tilting positioning upon entry, as any angle would have left marks in the lawn or thrown the remainder of the high wing and/or it's engine over the outer ring wall.

I imagine you have seen black burn marks on the exterior of the pentagon and joined the dots to conclude that charring = impact points. That would be like a cartoon, with the nose cone and landing gear punching a nice round exit hole, and the wings and engines vaporising on impact.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf for a clearer picture.


----------



## Big P (Jan 30, 2010)

Miss MeanWeed said:


> I'm sorry but that is preposterous.
> 
> All official doctrine on the Pentagon plane refers to it's nearly horizontal slightly left tilting positioning upon entry, as any angle would have left marks in the lawn or thrown the remainder of the high wing and/or it's engine over the outer ring wall.
> 
> ...


 
just saying more than 100 people watched the plane fly into the pentagon with thier own eyes

you think you could convince them it wasnt a plane?


i dont understand how you guys cant see how redicules your no plane theory is, i mean if you logically thought it through and all


----------



## CrackerJax (Jan 30, 2010)

Because youtube defeats eye witnesses .... as long as the viewers aren't very bright.


----------



## Wavels (Jan 30, 2010)

Wowee...
This is like the little thread that could...I think I can, I think I can!


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

where'd they all go?


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 30, 2010)

Miss MeanWeed said:


> I'm sorry but that is preposterous.
> 
> All official doctrine on the Pentagon plane refers to it's nearly horizontal slightly left tilting positioning upon entry, as any angle would have left marks in the lawn or thrown the remainder of the high wing and/or it's engine over the outer ring wall.
> 
> ...


Good point(s)...vaporizing steel and titanium and intact humans strapped in their seats 

And please!!!!...t-h-e-i-r....not t-h-i-e-r!!!!!!!!if you type in blue...and what you type is underlined
in red...on the white page...it is not your computers way of telling you how patriotic you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Good point(s)...vaporizing steel and titanium and intact humans strapped in their seats
> 
> And please!!!!...t-h-e-i-r....not t-h-i-e-r!!!!!!!!if you type in blue...and what you type is underlined
> in red...on the white page...it is not your computers way of telling you how patriotic you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



so it's either everything was vaporized, or nothing at all? 

do people really not get it? or are they just being thick?


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 30, 2010)

Hes just stating that if mostly everything vaporized, its kinda hard to believe that 2 bodies would still be left, not saying it couldn't happened, but the odd's of it happening are pretty low

maybe you should think some more before trying to disprove everyone right off the back


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

why couldn't things not be vaporized. why does one have to believe everything was vaporized. is it really hard to see this? some shit was vaporized, some wasn't. 

are we really arguing/explaining this. 



i came into this thread "undecided". i feel stupid for ever questioning any of it now. 

thanks to the OP for setting me straight, i was thinking crazy.


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3726215]Hes just stating that if mostly everything vaporized, its kinda hard to believe that 2 bodies would still be left, not saying it couldn't happened, but the odd's of it happening are pretty low

maybe you should think some more before trying to disprove everyone right off the back[/QUOTE]


it's "right off the bat" since we are being spelling nazi's.  http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/right-off-the-bat



and is it really that hard to believe? when you are already believing all the other BS? you can't believe this though? 


gtfo


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 30, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3726215]Hes just stating that if mostly everything vaporized, its kinda hard to believe that 2 bodies would still be left, not saying it couldn't happen, but the odd's of it happening are pretty low

maybe you should think some more before trying to disprove everyone right off the back[/QUOTE]

here maybe that will help you, you read what you want to hear, then you just fire off lol


EDIT: LOL i knew i said it wrong


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3726237]here maybe that will help you, you read what you want to hear, then you just fire off lol


EDIT: LOL i knew i said it wrong [/QUOTE]


and what are you doing?  posting 1 minute after me. 

i know what i'm saying. do you? no.


----------



## "SICC" (Jan 30, 2010)

So because i a said a phrase wrong, what ever i say now is not credible, right FDD.... how is the weather up there?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3726253]So because i a said a phrase wrong, what ever i say now is not credible, right FDD.... how is the weather up there? [/QUOTE]

you obviously have NOT been paying attention.


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 30, 2010)

SICC";3726215]Hes just stating that if mostly everything vaporized said:


> it's "right off the bat" since we are being spelling nazi's.  http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/right-off-the-bat
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A while back...someone was nailing keenly on every grammatical error/typo possible...makes me a little nervous of being belittled also...I thought that person was you...I guess I must be mistaken, and apologize

Everyone makes typos, spelling and grammar errors...and most people occasionally mix up their, they're, and there...some more than others and is often associated with less formal education and that is cool also...but those people NEVER call other members stupid. Habitually misspelling simple words while at the same time calling every person who does not agree with them and the handful of witnesses morons, idiots, stupid, thick, and insinuate that others do not love their country seems...well...

If you came to this thread undecided...how in the world could a handful of people whom you do not respect...solidify in your mind that either the lie that is the official report is the truth, or that it is ok to lie to the people?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Exactly. Again...I do not know what happened, it's just that the BS meter goes off too often with the official story. Of course it is plausible that some parts vaporized while others did not (though this was not the story with fdd's F4 example hitting reinforced concrete...similar to the pentagon.
> 
> However it would seem like things of greater mass would survive the vaporization like the landing gear...but human bodies, essentially bags of water...and then there is the large unburnt pieces of fuselage (light aluminum...same as the f4) that did not vaporize, but the majority of both engines did.
> 
> ...



because i have been watching and reading all the links. i actually learned something. 


sorry if my playful jabs offend your tender verginer. 
good to see you can poke about the spelling, even being wrong. but when it happens to you it's offensive.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Jan 30, 2010)

tender verginer? lol what's a tender verginer?


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> tender verginer? lol what's a tender verginer?


it's that thing that's got the sand all over it.


----------



## Hayduke (Jan 30, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> because i have been watching and reading all the links. i actually learned something.  I ask a question...so I am a dunce...
> 
> 
> sorry if my playful jabs offend your tender verginer.
> good to see you can poke about the spelling, even being wrong. but when it happens to you it's offensive.


The offensive part is the name calling...not spelling.

When I said that pointing out every single error made by one member made me...whatever I said...I meant I was trying to not be the butt of your "playful jabs", only because I respect your skills as a grower, breeder, and glass blower and was trying to not end up categorized as an idiot (though I am quite sure my questioning nature solidified this already) as I occasionally need some good advice, and you are one of the few (who are still here) that I trust with growing advice...I also like some of your glass and love the Hijack "A".

Sorry my verginer is not as rough and tough as yours...I will work on that


----------



## fdd2blk (Jan 30, 2010)

lol? ... :-\


----------



## Miss MeanWeed (Jan 30, 2010)

Big P said:


> just saying more than 100 people watched the plane fly into the pentagon with thier own eyes
> 
> you think you could convince them it wasnt a plane?
> 
> ...


Apologies, but I think you may have mis-categorised me.

I was merely pointing out that your summation of events based on observations from that photo were entirely wrong, and redirecting you to official FEMA reliant NIST reports, here: 
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 1, 2010)

... so why bother ... I'm done with the stupid who want to disrupt this thread ... if they want to be stupid I certainly won't stand in their way ... and it doesn't bother me that they try to stand in the way of a real investigation ... the fact that they are stupid explains their behavior and makes them of no consequence of exposing the lies and reporting the FACTS ... so ignore them ... I certain intend to ... they are not even worth taking a good dump on ... now on to the 911 news.

[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/nyregion/30trial.html?partner=rss&emc=rss"]U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City [/url]
Why am I NOT surprised ... 

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/22/charges-withdrawn-military-commissions-sept-suspects/"]Charges Withdrawn in Military Commissions for Sept. 11 Suspects[/url]
Charges against 9/11 suspects were dropped "without prejudice" -- a procedural move that allows federal officials to transfer the men to trial in a civilian court and also leaves the door open to again bringing charges in military commissions.
*Webmaster's Commentary:* 
One has to wonder if these people will ever be brought up for trial at all, or will be held in indefinite incarceration without any trial.


http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_480171.htmlhttp://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_480171.html[URL="http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_480171.html"]9/11 was staged: Dr M
[/url]
MALAYSIA'S former premier Mahathir Mohamad claimed the Sept 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, which killed nearly 3,000 people, were staged as an excuse to 'mount attacks on the Muslim world'.
Speaking at the General Conference for the Support of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) here, Tun Dr Mahathir said killing as an excuse for war is not new to the US. He also argued that Israel was created to solve the 'Jewish problem' in Europe, saying the Holocaust had failed as a final solution against the community.







[URL="http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11656"]The Real Reason for the Cancellation of the 9-11 Trial [/url]
The Obama administration will not have an open 9-11 trial because it would expose the fraud that the person said to be Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not the terror mastermind of 9-11. He is, in fact, not even Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The person said to be KSM is a "feeble-minded" man named Ahmed Abdul Qudoos. He has been scapegoated and made to fill in for the real KSM, who was killed in Pakistan.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
Under torture Ahmed Abdul Qudoos confessed to being Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Lee Harvey Oswald, Judge Crater, Amelia Earhart, and Jack the Ripper!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckLLs_RdU4&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckLLs_RdU4&feature=player_embeddedDEETS - audio interview part 1/6

[youtube]fckLLs_RdU4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Dwain Deets - former NASA engineer - interview on REPUBLIC THEORY by Dallas Andrews and Warren Dyson.





[URL="http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/video-building-7-reporter-byron-pitts.html"]Video: Building 7 Reporter Byron Pitts "Number of things don't add up."[/url]
"It was the one calamity that was not a surprise..."

9/11 Truth In 9 Minutes
[youtube]x0K4GY7TK28&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Comparison videos of known high-rise steel structure fires of the Parque Central Tower Fire, Mandarin Hotel Fire, Windsor Tower Fire with the fires in the World Trade Center North Tower, South Tower and Building Seven. Videos of highlighted known controlled demolitions. Both top down and conventional demolitions.
You decide if the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory is true.


This is a pretty good video ... has some excellent comparisons of skyscrapers that burn much longer and hotter than the WTC and they didn't collapse ... been brought out before ... but the truth can't be brought out enough in this case ... 

Mechanical Engineer Derek Johnson "Engineering Destruction" part 1 - Ae911Truth
[youtube]142Ati4GEJQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth Presentation on WTC 7 controlled Demolition.

[URL="http://www.bushstole04.com/911/standdown1.htm"]The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Services Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?[/url]
The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Services Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?
Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, at 9:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001, an officer at Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, DC, was notified that the Secret Service wanted fighter jets launched over the nations capital. It was now obvious the U.S. was under terrorist attack, and Washington would have been an obvious potential target. And yet the Secret Services request came to nothing.


http://www.bushstole04.com/911/videographer.htmhttp://www.bushstole04.com/911/videographer.htm[URL="http://www.bushstole04.com/911/videographer.htm"]9/11 FEMA Videographer at Ground Zero Goes Public
[/url]
Kurt Sonnenfeld : Exclusive interview by Voltairenet
Source: Voltairenet.org
As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes: What I saw at certain moments and in certain places  is very disturbing!
It was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks.


OOOh lookie ... here's some more crazy people that want a real investigation ... imagine my lack of surprise ...


http://world911truth.org/60-aerospace-engineers-call-for-a-new-911-investigation/http://world911truth.org/60-aerospace-engineers-call-for-a-new-911-investigation/[URL="http://world911truth.org/60-aerospace-engineers-call-for-a-new-911-investigation/"]60 Aerospace Engineers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation
[/url]
As the number of verified architect and engineer petitioners at AE911Truth passes 1,000, the number describing themselves as aerospace engineers, or as engineers who have contributed professionally to the aerospace field, exceed sixty. These sixty-plus engineers were motivated to place their names on the public record as a matter of professional and social responsibility. While the skills necessary to conduct professional forensic analysis of destroyed buildings is largely distinct from those experienced in aerospace engineering, the basic physical laws involved in an analysis of the speed, symmetry, and energy input/output balance of the World Trade Centers destruction involve only high school physics and chemistry, some lookups regarding the energy necessary to crush concrete, and basic arithmetic.
Of course the idiots in denial are far more intelligent than these engineers ... they know so much more ... 


Here's a great video of a Japan Senator asking some tough questions about 911 ... and note that the minister doesn't have the answers except ... "that's what the US government told us" ... Also notice the pictures of the pentagon he shows to MP and ask "why is there no plane wreckage at the pentagon?
http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/japanese-senators-ask-tough-questions.htmlhttp://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/japanese-senators-ask-tough-questions.html*J**apanese Senators ask the tough questions*
you see the representatives of the Japanese people exercise their critical thinking skills in public - aware of bogus origins of the "War on Terror" (whatever that means)-aware that we've all just taken the word of some paid-for people - while ignoring real science. Must be nice to have a functioning government - anyway - take a peek.


David Ray Griffin at Boston University, Part 1 of 8

[youtube]lf5rTPuLDfM&feature=player_embedded#[/youtube]
David Ray Griffin's lecture at Boston University on April 11, 2009 (9/11, Time For a Second Look) . Dr. Griffin meticulously presents the case for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks--the 9/11 Commission Report on the "official" conspiracy theory is full of contradictions and apparent lies. 1st. of 8 parts.


----------



## raisedonfuel (Feb 1, 2010)

*Alex jones!*


----------



## Big P (Feb 1, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> ... so why bother ... I'm done with the stupid who want to disrupt this thread ... if they want to be stupid I certainly won't stand in their way ... and it doesn't bother me that they try to stand in the way of a real investigation ... the fact that they are stupid explains their behavior and makes them of no consequence of exposing the lies and reporting the FACTS ... so ignore them ... I certain intend to ... they are not even worth taking a good dump on ... now on to the 911 news.
> 
> 
> awsome grow rebel let me try to see if I can debunk you point by point
> ...


 
ok well i just took a zanext and started drinking and my buddy tired of watching me type

i will rebut these later tomorrow after reviewing them

but from debunking (your first few see above in blue) i have a feeling most of your post is deciet (not by you per say)



all i can tell you is if it was an inside job you know all of us would be ready to take down those responsible one way or the other

anyway I shall return


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 1, 2010)

lol good luck Big P


----------



## Hayduke (Feb 1, 2010)

Big P said:


> all i can tell you is if it was an inside job you know all of us would be ready to take down those responsible one way or the other


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 1, 2010)

Big P said:


> ok well i just took a zanext and started drinking and my buddy tired of watching me type
> 
> i will rebut these later tomorrow after reviewing them
> 
> ...



In other words " I gotta go find some debunking site that debunks all your links, then I will come back and try to sound intelligent by basically just spewing out whatever the debunker site said. Even if it totally contradicts anything I said before".


Its I before E, except after C. Just that little tidbit will help you come off as way more credible, because nothing says uneducated more than constant unswerving terrible spelling.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

No, ur supposed to use ur own common sense.... but since by now it is evident that you don't possess it in enough quantity.... only others will get it.

9/11 truthers scheme is so convoluted and twisted as to defy common sense. But most of us can easily see that....


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

like a plate of spaghetti.


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 2, 2010)

so you guys got nothing then?!?! 

maybe you should just unsubscribe


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3737528]so you guys got nothing then?!?! 

maybe you should just unsubscribe[/QUOTE]

lol 

maybe you all should give up. there will be NO new investigation.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

Read the writing on the wall....believe me, the letters are big enough to see from a far distance.


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 2, 2010)

im not asking for another "investigation" lol

the info is already out there by the mass's, thats all that really matters to me


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

Yes, and I've already mentioned that quite a few "truthers" don't want another investigation. It's the only way they can keep the delusion intact....the way it is.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3737604]im not asking for another "investigation" lol

the info is already out there by the mass's, thats all that really matters to me[/QUOTE]

so, in your own words, could you run down what "really" happened that day? a quick time line maybe. since it's "all out there" this shouldn't be a problem.


such as, ...


9:17 am - missle 2 is launched from aircraft 12 at a speed of XXXXX and an impact rate of XXXXX. 

9:20 am - truck scatters "evidence" before news cameras arrive.

9:23 am - press allowed to enter site and film 




anyone?


----------



## Big P (Feb 2, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> In other words " I gotta go find some debunking site that debunks all your links, then I will come back and try to sound intelligent by basically just spewing out whatever the debunker site said. Even if it totally contradicts anything I said before".
> 
> 
> Its I before E, except after C. Just that little tidbit will help you come off as way more credible, because nothing says uneducated more than constant unswerving terrible spelling.


 
actually its the I before E bullshit that just confuses me as I am parcially dyslexic and I before E is not a true rule here some examples my "smart" freind


here just a coulpe for you to ponder my little buddy


absenteeism
 ageism
albeit
Alexei
Alzheimer
Anaheim
atheist
beige
being
Beijing
Beirut
Boeing
Budweiser
caffeine
codeine
counterfeit
cuneiform
deign
Deirdre
edelweiss
eider
eight
Einstein
either
Fahrenheit
feign
feint
feisty
foreign
forfeit
freight
geiger counter
geisha
heifer
height
heinous
heir
heist
herein
Holstein
homogeneity
Hygeia
inveigh
inveigle
kaleidoscope
Keith
Klein
Leicester
leishmaniasis
leisure
leitmotif
Madeira
meiosis
monteith
neigh
Neil
neither
nonpareil
nuclei
nucleic
obeisance
onomatopoeic
Oppenheimer
plebeian
Pleiades
poltergeist
protein
queueing
reimburse
rein
reindeer
reinstate
reinvent
reitbok
seismic
seize
sheik
Sheila
skein
sleigh
sovereign
surfeit
surveillance
Taipei
their
theism
veil
vein
weigh
weir
weird
wisenheimer
zein
zeitgeist



so you can see for a person whos first language is was not english and the fact that I am somewhat dyslexic you can see how i got fucked by my teacher always telling me it I before E except after C




and drama I clearly stated I was too busy yesterday to debunk the rest, and that I would do it today,

dont be a lier and say things that are not true becuase you have your feeling obviously hurt,also dont put words in my mouth, as I catagotically spit them out in your face.


now let me see these clips and see what they are all about,


its funny you dont mention the first items that i already debunked off of GR's last post

what do you have to say about that blatent misinformation I already debunked, it was laughable

well let me know.


----------



## Big P (Feb 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so, in your own words, could you run down what "really" happened that day? a quick time line maybe. since it's "all out there" this shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> 
> such as, ...
> ...


 
Id like to see the reply for that one looooooooooool nice one!!!


----------



## Keenly (Feb 2, 2010)

there is something that happened to me last thursday that i havent shared yet, because frankly it scared the shit out of me


i had gotten off of work early so i decided to head to my friends house for a blunt


somebody followed me to my friends house, and when i parked and got out, he turned around and pulled up next to me


i thought he was going to ask for directions or some shit so i said whats up

he responds with "what the hell is your bumper sticker supposed to mean"

i said " exactly what it says "

" and what does that mean "

so i pointed out a random 9/11 fact that doesnt add up if you believe the official nonsense...

but the reason it was scary was because this guy was like "well my father died on 9/11" and he sounded pretty pissed, and the guy was huge, 250 easy, with arms like a roid user...

i was just thinking... please please please dont get out of the car

but anyway, he left after i convinced him to watch loose change, so yeah i was afraid that when i went back out to my car my window would be broken or tires slashed etc, but nope all good... and thats my story


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

saving the world, one victim at a time.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

He doesn't see how his bumper sticker is OFFENSIVE and in bad taste...


----------



## Keenly (Feb 2, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> He doesn't see how his bumper sticker is OFFENSIVE and in bad taste...


if your offended by my bumper sticker, your a cry baby

my first amendment applies, so fuck off


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> He doesn't see how his bumper sticker is OFFENSIVE and in bad taste...


he's lucky to be typing today. 

dude most likely figured it wasn't worth going to prison over. though it is. gives me a very good mental image of what's really going on.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

Keenly said:


> if your offended by my bumper sticker, your a cry baby
> 
> my first amendment applies, so fuck off



it's you're!!!!!!!


jesus fucking christ.      


take the time to learn to fucking spell. it's about the only thing on this site that really pisses me off. you've got 911 figured the fuck out but you can't get past 3rd grade spelling. this is EXACTLY why you DIDN'T get the shit kicked out of you.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

He's learned nothing from the episode.... I'm not surprised at all.


----------



## Keenly (Feb 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it's you're!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> jesus fucking christ.


QQ

i will type however i see fit, if you dont like it dont read it

oh look more missing 's might as well just forget about it because im not going to change the way a type because you dont like to see contractions missing the apostro


----------



## Keenly (Feb 2, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> He's learned nothing from the episode.... I'm not surprised at all.


i learned there are people out there who get angry at bumper stickers...

as if there was anything more useless and worthless to get angry about

apparently people have no other issues to be concerned about 


if you get mad at some ones bumper sticker, you really need to get a life


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

Keenly said:


> QQ
> 
> i will type however i see fit, if you dont like it dont read it
> 
> oh look more missing 's might as well just forget about it because im not going to change the way a type because you dont like to see contractions missing the apostro


dude, it's NOT just missing the apostrophe. it is misspelled and we have gone over this before. it is a DIRECT reflection of your intelligence. you seem to be incapable of learning simple things.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

Keenly said:


> i learned there are people out there who get angry at bumper stickers...
> 
> as if there was anything more useless and worthless to get angry about
> 
> ...



as you mock his dead family.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

Exactly..... and he thinks he knows something..... not.


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 2, 2010)

Lol so since you don't got nothing to say, you just bash on people's typing, 

that's just sad.

You should be putting CAPITALS when you start a sentence FDD, some intelligence you have 

It's kinda pathetic if you ask me.


----------



## Big P (Feb 2, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> ... so why bother ... I'm done with the stupid who want to disrupt this thread ... if they want to be stupid I certainly won't stand in their way ... and it doesn't bother me that they try to stand in the way of a real investigation ... the fact that they are stupid explains their behavior and makes them of no consequence of exposing the lies and reporting the FACTS ... so ignore them ... I certain intend to ... they are not even worth taking a good dump on ... now on to the 911 news.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/nyregion/30trial.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
> 
> ...


 ....................................................................


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3737925]Lol so since you don't got nothing to say, you just bash on people's typing, 

that's just sad.

You should be putting CAPITALS when you start a sentence FDD, some intelligence you have 

It's kinda pathetic if you ask me.[/QUOTE]



"Lol so since you don't got nothing to say, you just bash on people's typing, "


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Feb 2, 2010)

that was pretty funny I didn't catch that at first..


----------



## Big P (Feb 2, 2010)

Keenly said:


> there is something that happened to me last thursday that i havent shared yet, because frankly it scared the shit out of me
> 
> 
> i had gotten off of work early so i decided to head to my friends house for a blunt
> ...


 

damn man thats crazy. maybe the guys dad was a fireman of somthin

but yeah i had ordered this bumper sticker, but when it came down to it i decided not to put it on my bumper because although i think obama sucks, to some he is a symbol of black pride so i dont know i felt like kind of an asshole to do it even if it was funny

there are crazy people out there an i dont like to advertise to them. I even think its stupid when people put those signs on thier cars saying "Baby on Board"


im like why advertise to thousands of people that you have an infant in the car. Im sure som sick fucks will see you drive by. just better to be safe than sorry


wanna hear a crazy story, when my daughter was born i tried this trick to see if it would work i made a auction on ebay saying "its a gurl" and asking for donations. just to see if some people would actually help us out with donations

so I get this fucking email from a guy in singapore who said he is very interested and would pay and come pick up the "goods"

I was like WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! scared the shit outa me, i took the auction down immidiatly. 

that was bad


here's the bumper sticker i wanted to put on my car


----------



## Big P (Feb 2, 2010)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> that was pretty funny I didn't catch that at first..


 

You forgot to capitalize your sentence. You also have too many periods after the word first.



Heres my References:

*^* like this one
*^* Robert Bringhurst (2005). _The Elements of Typographic Style_ (version 3.1). Point Roberts, WA: Hartley and Marks. pp 6869.
*^* "Chapter 15: Footnotes, indexes, contents, and outlines". _U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual_. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/browse.html. Retrieved January 23 2010. 
*^* "A Guide to Footnotes and Endnotes for NASA History Authors". _NASA History Style Guide_. http://history.nasa.gov/footnoteguide.html. Retrieved March 24 2005. 
*^* "Nelson HTML Preprocessor". http://nelsonhtml.com. Retrieved 2009-06-09. 
*^* "In Justice Breyer's Opinion, A Footnote Has No Place". _The New York Times_. 1995-07-28. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DC163EF93BA15754C0A963958260. Retrieved 2008-04-30. 
*^* See Indiana Courts  Footnotes in Legal Opinions


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Feb 2, 2010)

hahha. I always misspell I like to irk people


----------



## Big P (Feb 2, 2010)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> hahha. I always misspell I like to irk people


 

me too i luv the risk and danger of being a nuaghty speller,


we're rebels dude!!!! fuck did i just spell we're right?



maybe im not a rebel


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

By the way Keenly ... you absolutely have the right to your free speech.

Just be aware that all speech has it's own set of consequences. 

Your sticker doesn't indicate a lot of tolerance, and yet you expect it from others.


----------



## Eternal (Feb 2, 2010)

I don't see how you can honestly watch Blueprint for Truth, like honestly watch it without instantly discarding the info, and not think twice about 9/11. Simple physics that a 10 year old can grasp which show the 3 towers were brought down via controlled demolition. 

How do you explain the fact that the buildings fell at free-fall speed, not just for a split second either. They also fell symmetrically straight down into their own footprint (except of course for the top section of the tower that fell sideways hitting wtc7, but still had enough downward force to cause the lower 80% of the building to fall symmetrically at free fall speeds, and causing horrible fires that eventually brought the wtc7 building down symmetrically at free fall speeds.

Then theres the visual evidence including squibs coming from the bands you can see around the building which just happen to be the most heavily reinforced parts of the towers (the towers are 3 buildings stacked ontop of eachother. The joint, aka sky-lobby, must obviously bear a very heavy load. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EbsGZcl2jk&feature=related but nah those aren't squibs its the air pressure bro!

Honestly though you can't argue the points made in Blueprint for Truth. Then once it finally dawns on you non-truthers that 9/11 was controlled by the US federal government and military, you will look into other political conspiracy theories from ages ago and realize not only is it highly possible for a secret society to be in control or planning to become in control, but that there has been for much longer than one may think and they have been slowly, with the world their stage, enacting their script. Many people have been murdered for speaking out against secret societies and warning of the potential they have to gain full control.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 2, 2010)

This is the kind of post that reflects the author is coming in at the end.... read the pages...it's ALL been explained FULLY.... over and over again.

It also shows, you haven't even BOTHERED to read the official report...which makes total sense.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

Eternal said:


> I don't see how you can honestly watch Blueprint for Truth, like honestly watch it without instantly discarding the info, and not think twice about 9/11. Simple physics that a 10 year old can grasp which show the 3 towers were brought down via controlled demolition.
> 
> How do you explain the fact that the buildings fell at free-fall speed, not just for a split second either. They also fell symmetrically straight down into their own footprint (except of course for the top section of the tower that fell sideways hitting wtc7, but still had enough downward force to cause the lower 80% of the building to fall symmetrically at free fall speeds, and causing horrible fires that eventually brought the wtc7 building down symmetrically at free fall speeds.
> 
> ...



who asked canada? 

go shovel your driveway.


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> *dude*, it's NOT just missing the apostrophe. it is misspelled and we have gone over this before.* it *is a DIRECT reflection of your intelligence. *you* seem to be incapable of learning simple things.



Now Now FDD, you need to remember sentence structure. The beginning of a sentence will always be capitalized. Sometimes I think you do it on purpose just to show us all how stupid we really are, yourself included.


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 2, 2010)

Big P said:


> actually its the I before E bullshit that just confuses me as I am parcially dyslexic and I before E is not a true rule here some examples my "smart" freind
> 
> 
> here just a coulpe for you to ponder my little buddy
> ...



Well excuse me, I didn't realize you're vaginer was so full of sand and yeast. Next Im sure we will hear a story about how your teachers molested you and how your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elder berries. Now go away before I Taunt you for a second time!

[youtube]9V7zbWNznbs[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 2, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Now Now FDD, you need to remember sentence structure. The beginning of a sentence will always be capitalized. Sometimes I think you do it on purpose just to show us all how stupid we really are, yourself included.


yes, i do it on purpose. simply because i am LAZY. but at least i know how to spell.


----------



## Keenly (Feb 2, 2010)

Big P said:


>



i have this as a shirt actually the one that says New World Order

very first day i wore it i went to the doctor and while i was waiting this old woman came up to me whispering

"you know what" 

*looks both ways and whispers*

"i think he is the anti christ"


it was so hard not to laugh


----------



## Hayduke (Feb 2, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> since we are being spelling nazi's.  http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/right-off-the-bat





fdd2blk said:


> it's you're!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> jesus fucking christ.
> ...


More "playful jabs"???


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 3, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> More "playful jabs"???


no, that one actually bothers me. it's such an easy fix.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 3, 2010)

It does happen on occasion when the fingers are flying.......

But Keenly is an example of a person who is without a grammatical foundation worth emulating. It is a sign of education. 

His response is basically.... whatever....which is the attitude of most ppl not schooled well.


----------



## mexiblunt (Feb 3, 2010)

jerry!!! Jerry!!! Jerry!!!! Jerry!!! Jerry!!! Jerry!!!


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Feb 3, 2010)

Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys?


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 3, 2010)

Antidisestablishmentarian said:


> Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys?


Seinfeld.

oh boy


----------



## Keenly (Feb 3, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> It does happen on occasion when the fingers are flying.......
> 
> But Keenly is an example of a person who is without a grammatical foundation worth emulating. It is a sign of education.
> 
> His response is basically.... whatever....which is the attitude of most ppl not schooled well.



or your just a troll?


you know what taught me how to type? starcraft...

dont like the way a type? too bad, get over it, because its not going to change

just keep whining about it since thats all you can really do


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 3, 2010)

Keenly said:


> or your just a troll?
> 
> 
> you know what taught me how to type? starcraft...
> ...








it's YOU'RE, jesus fucking christ.  




i hope to god that was a joke.


----------



## Eternal (Feb 3, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> who asked canada?
> 
> go shovel your driveway.


Nice try but you see Canadians are proud and won't take offense to childish comments like yours. If I didn't love my country I'd move, and I happen to love winter. I work outside everyday throughout. It helps you appreciate the warm weather when it comes.

Maybe you could reply to my post instead of acting like you are about to unveil what you brought to kindergarten today for show and tell. As far as your grammar concerns go, you know theres a screw loose when you end up pointing out your own short-comings while trying to do just that to someone else. Bottom line it's grammar, nobody cares, don't have a damn heart attack over it. So far your purpose in life seems to be irritating and instigating. I wonder how many of your posts are of any useful info.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 3, 2010)

Eternal said:


> Nice try but you see Canadians are proud and won't take offense to childish comments like yours. If I didn't love my country I'd move, and I happen to love winter. I work outside everyday throughout. It helps you appreciate the warm weather when it comes.
> 
> Maybe you could reply to my post instead of acting like you are about to unveil what you brought to kindergarten today for show and tell. As far as your grammar concerns go, you know theres a screw loose when you end up pointing out your own short-comings while trying to do just that to someone else. Bottom line it's grammar, nobody cares, don't have a damn heart attack over it. So far your purpose in life seems to be irritating and instigating. I wonder how many of your posts are of any useful info.



you all really need to lighten up. lol


another joke lost to lack of pot. i guess.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 3, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> it's YOU'RE, jesus fucking christ.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He keeps making my points for me!!! Spoils all my fun... 

Lawdy...


----------



## Eternal (Feb 3, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you all really need to lighten up. lol
> 
> 
> another joke lost to lack of pot. i guess.


your joke was absolutely hilarious and I'm sure it was your sole intention to be funny. 

this thread is about 9/11. I don't find genocide or your attempt at a joke to be funny. Doesn't matter which side of the movement you are on, you still look like an asshole and I wouldn't be surprised if you are creating arguments just to change the topic.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 3, 2010)

Eternal said:


> your joke was absolutely hilarious and I'm sure it was your sole intention to be funny.
> 
> this thread is about 9/11. I don't find genocide or your attempt at a joke to be funny. Doesn't matter which side of the movement you are on, you still look like an asshole and I wouldn't be surprised if you are creating arguments just to change the topic.


if i am, it's working.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 3, 2010)

Ladies and gentlemen ... the 911 News ... here's a nice op ed for interested viewers ... 

http://bigeye.com/911_would_government.htm9/11: Would Government?
When you grasp the WHY of 911 you will have less emotional resistance to discovering who murdered over 3,000 of our citizens. The late Aaron Russo's documentary videos offer a broad theory of the WHY. They need to be seen, although it seems unrealistic that a controlling oligarchy would risk employing technical expertise to execute 911. A more plausible theory, starting from CUI BONO, (Who Benefits? - the Latin starting argument in determining guilt) was propounded at the end of 2003 by Professor Paul J. Balles. Motive and benefit may be shared by both the guilty and the innocent. To accomplish as sophisticated an event as 911 requires means and opportunity, as well as motive (benefit).

Republicans unite to halt trials of alleged 9/11 plotters
US lawmakers Tuesday unveiled plans to block public funding for US-based trials involving Guantanamo detainees who are accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Republican lawmakers Frank Wolf and Lindsey Graham joined forces to introduce legislation which "would explicitly block this dangerous and wasteful trial from any domestic civilian court," Wolf said.
Webmaster's Commentary: 
"Dangerous and wasteful"?!?
Dangerous for whom, and wasteful, in a country which is allegedly built on the principle of being a nation ruled by laws?
These men understand that the standards for proof toward a conviction are going to be far higher in a civilian court of law than they ever would be in a military tribunal.
Is it possible that some of these guys were just at the absolutely wrong place at the wrong time, were turned into American custody for a bounty, and were then tortured into confession, as was the case with Abdul Sheik Mohammed??
Of course, that is something these congressmen would never want the American people - or the world - to know.
That's why they're balking at any possibility of a civilian trial, which - if we actually believe in the American system of Justice - is what should be happening for every prisoner of war we are holding at Gitmo.


http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2009/12/federal-judge-in-germany-numerous-911.html#ixzz0eOa6KkscFederal Judge in Germany: Numerous 9/11 Theories Screaming For Investigation 
Question: Do you think the proposal of an independent 9/11 investigation to be realistic?
Judge Dieter Deiseroth:: I think the suggestion is reasonable and necessary. Because the official investigation is the central justification for the war ( "Operation Enduring Freedom") and for serious alterations of the U.S. legal system under the so-called homeland security legislation.


Here's an interesting report ... but isn't that why they use torture ... to gain false confessions of patsies, to cover up false flag operations ... 



*Much of 9/11 Commissions Findings Cite Intelligence 
Garnered by Torture*
Much of 9/11 Commissions Findings Cite Intelligence Garnered by Torture
Source: rawstory.com
Much of the material cited in the 9/11 Commissions findings was derived from terror war detainees during brutal CIA interrogations authorized by the Bush administration, according to a Wednesday report.
More than one-quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al Qaeda operatives subjected to the now-controversial interrogation techniques, writes former NBC producer Robert Windrem in The Daily Beast. In fact, information derived from the interrogations was central to the 9/11 Reports most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks.


... and that's all I have time for folks ... so good night and good news ...


----------



## Hayduke (Feb 3, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> jerry!!! Jerry!!! Jerry!!!! Jerry!!! Jerry!!! Jerry!!!


Oh wait...I just got it...I was thinking Garcia...as in who would have thought CJ was a Dead Head!

So not Jones, not Seinfeld, but Springer...Sorry I am a bit slow


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 3, 2010)




----------



## Hayduke (Feb 3, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


>


Hijack...Creation of a mad man??????


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 6, 2010)

More and more high profile people are coming forward and speaking out about the false flag attack that took place on 911 ... check it ... 

Actor/Comedian Hal Sparks Speaks Out In Support of 9/11 Truth

[youtube]phHW5O-X-Yk&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


Here's another report of interest ... I hope people continue to push for some kind of trial for these war criminals ... until they are indicted, tried, and sentence they will continue to commit more false flag attacks and war crimes ... 

International Criminal Court complaint filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales
A leading US professor of law has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court prosecutor against former US President George W. Bush and a number of his senior lieutenants alleging crimes against humanity for their policy and practice of extraordinary rendition and requesting that the ICC prosecutor obtain international arrest warrants against Mr Bush and his co-accused.
Consequently, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their ICC statutory crimes under Rome Statute Article 12(2)(a) that affords the ICC jurisdiction to prosecute for ICC statutory crimes committed in ICC member states.

The complaint requests: 

That the ICC prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord under Rome Statute article 15(1); and
That the ICC Prosecutor also formally submit to the [ICC] Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation of the Accused under Rome Statute Article 15(3).


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 6, 2010)

hal sparks is a comedian, far from "high profile". i guess he does one up charlie sheen though, lol. his opinion means about as much as mine. he's good for a laugh, funny guy.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 7, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> hal sparks is a comedian, far from "high profile". i guess he does one up charlie sheen though, lol. his opinion means about as much as mine. he's good for a laugh, funny guy.


Ah ... no ... his opinion means more than your because he is high profile and you are not ... at least not in the minds of the majority ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 7, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Ah ... no ... his opinion means more than your because he is high profile and you are not ... at least not in the minds of the majority ...



i'm getting up there, ... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fdd2blk&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS355US355&ie=UTF-8 Results *1* - *10* of about *6,910* for *fdd2blk*. (*0.24* seconds)




hal sparks is a comedian. charlie sheen is a comedian. funny stuff.  


still no investigation. HA


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 7, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm getting up there, ... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fdd2blk&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS355US355&ie=UTF-8 Results *1* - *10* of about *6,910* for *fdd2blk*. (*0.24* seconds)



Results *1* - *10* of about *1,040,000* for *NoDrama*. (*0.27* seconds)

that makes me 150 times more credible than you?


----------



## mexiblunt (Feb 7, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Results *1* - *10* of about *1,040,000* for *NoDrama*. (*0.27* seconds)
> 
> that makes me 150 times more credible than you?


 
Results *1* - *5* of *5* for *mexiblunt*. (*0.15* seconds)


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Feb 7, 2010)

hey, I'm more credible than the whole lot of ya!! 

Results *1* - *10* of about *1,740,000* for *dr. greenhorn *


----------



## laceygirl (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's a news flash,,, Charlie Sheen isn't funny...


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 7, 2010)

laceygirl said:


> Here's a news flash,,, Charlie Sheen isn't funny...






lolololololol


----------



## laceygirl (Feb 7, 2010)

Hope this has lightened the mood....


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 7, 2010)

If only it worked on delusions.....


----------



## Hayduke (Feb 8, 2010)

FDD has me beat by 10


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 8, 2010)

i googled hal sparks. apparently he is a musician now.

yeah, this dude has it all figured out, ... http://halsparks.com/introspectacles/

he knows where the MONEY is. 

i see NOTHING on HIS website about a new 9/11 investigation.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 8, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i googled hal sparks. apparently he is a musician now.
> 
> yeah, this dude has it all figured out, ... http://halsparks.com/introspectacles/
> 
> ...


Who says he has to other than you and people like you that enjoy seeing war criminals get away with murder ... and who says other than you and the people like you that comedians can't have an opinion on issues facing this country ... 

We all know you and people like you heed this warning ...

Obama Warns Not To Challenge Official 9/11 Story
[youtube]cuASoVK8f9c&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Must be a nice feeling for you knowing you are an obedient pawn ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 8, 2010)

yeah, i'm a pawn.

you have NO idea. 

you are the prawn of the NEW INVESTIGATION movement. swim on crustacean, swim on.

hal sparks, ... bwahahahahaha


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 8, 2010)

prawn are like sheep, only they live on the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## Big P (Feb 8, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Who says he has to other than you and people like you that enjoy seeing war criminals get away with murder ... and who says other than you and the people like you that comedians can't have an opinion on issues facing this country ...
> 
> We all know you and people like you heed this warning ...
> 
> ...


 

i think grow rebel may be delusional, as he doesnt seem young or even un-intelligent


or maybe hes just a sucker for sore eyes



Remember


Even a pawn can become the all powerful queen if he follows the right path  




its all in how you see yourself when you look in the mirror


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 8, 2010)

Whom to believe....

Obama or an actor?

I'll admit....that one's a toss up. That's not good news.


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 8, 2010)

he believes in his own views, just like you do....


----------



## Keenly (Feb 8, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3763073]he believes in his own views, just like you do....[/QUOTE]


seriously if your going to close your brain you cant bag on GR for doing the same, unless you want to be a hypocrite that is


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 8, 2010)

Sure, everyone is right, no one is wrong. That's the way to go through life.

Having a thought is not validation of anything other than proving you aren't dead.


Being delusional isn't a right.... it's a problem.

And once again...Keenly hasn't mastered the English language...


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 8, 2010)

it one simple contraction. just goes to show what this thread is made of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_(grammar)



i will send keenly a free piece of glass if he can properly learn to use contractions. and not just once, but all the time. 

you can do it!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 8, 2010)

Writing is funde....fundaman ... fundimenta....writing is hard.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Feb 8, 2010)

hahahaha!  funny shit CJ


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 8, 2010)

maybe if he wrote it on his hand.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 9, 2010)

Snark snark....


----------



## Big P (Feb 9, 2010)

wow look what i found on the internet


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 10, 2010)

oh god thats nasty


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 10, 2010)

Bush/Cheney are still running the country...


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 10, 2010)

I thought she would have bigger titties.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 11, 2010)

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/new-images-of-9-11-released-18068997


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 11, 2010)

May they rest in peace.

Of course they'll have to ignore the truthers who spit on their graves.


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 11, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/new-images-of-9-11-released-18068997



Doesn't provide evidence for either view, although there sure is a lot of dust billowing out.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 11, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Doesn't provide evidence for either view, although there sure is a lot of dust billowing out.


nice way to come out shooting wildly.

i said NOTHING. simply posted a link. who the fuck are you replying to? it wasn't supposed to "prove" anything. it just some new pictures. lighten up a little.


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 11, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> nice way to come out shooting wildly.
> 
> i said NOTHING. simply posted a link. who the fuck are you replying to? it wasn't supposed to "prove" anything. it just some new pictures. lighten up a little.


I never said anything about "proof" now did I? Your Vagina get sand in it today or what? You sure do seem EXTRA sensitive today.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 11, 2010)

Nothing but the usual bullshit from the pawns of the peanut gallery ... nothing new there ... it pretty pathetic and low life when dummies cheer on war criminals and murders.

Now back to the real news ... 
FAA and NORAD Changed Records to Accord with Cheney Lies
The 9/11 Commission's Senior Counsel reveals that FAA and NORAD changed their records to accord with Dick Cheney's and Paul Wolfowitz's narrative of heroism and leadership on 9/11.

TEXAN MEDINA QUESTIONS ANY US ROLE IN 9/11 ATTACKS
Medina, speaking on the Glenn Beck Show on Thursday, was asked if she believed the government was in any way involved with bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
Medina also says she believes some very good questions have been raised. She says "there's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there."


Are they prepping for 9/11 PT 2?

It is interesting to have all these reports of crashing predator drones around the same time as the war drums are beating to attack Yemen and Iran, as well as the CIA telling congress that we are going to be attacked by Al-Cia-Ada within the next 6 months.


9/11 Cheney Connection

A review of compelling evidence that incriminates Dick Cheney with actionable foreknowledge before 9/11, criminal misconduct on 9/11, and obstruction of the investigation after 9/11. This is not about theory, rather the historical facts.


9/11 photos: helicopter pilot describes taking the pictures

Mr Semendinger, who still lives in New York state,: "We were first responders and we were already getting our helicopter ready when the call came that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center. We were 11 miles away and we could see it and already tell it was really bad.
"We jumped in the helicopter and we were the there within six or seven minutes and started scouring the roof to see if anyone had made it up there and could be rescued. I had landed on the roof before when a bomb went off in the basement in 1993.


Some never before seen: NYPD World Trade Center 9/11 Aerial Photos

Great pictures of WTC7 in the series.


7 WTC Shortly before collapsing

[youtube]K0CU-teE0bQ&feature=related[/youtube]


Dramatic images of World Trade Centre collapse on 9/11 released for first time

A tsunami of smoke, dust and debris roars down the streets of New York City as the World Trade Centre towers collapse.
These dramatic images were taken by police photographers in helicopters and it is the first time they have been seen, having been released under a Freedom of Information request made by America's ABC News.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_dust.wmv]This video

_shows a comparison of the dust cloud which followed a World Trade 
Center collapse and the dust cloud which followed a controlled 
demolition. Strikingly similar._

29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for 
Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises 
on 9/11
The facts are in. The evidence is conclusive. 
These experts lay it all out.
For Some, the Doubts Began Early Something is wrong with this picture, thought Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural engineer trained in buildings responses to stress, Lomba saw more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?


Commission Chairman:9/11 Commission Was Set Up to Fail

This is a very brief clip from a question and answer session Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton gave at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on 9/11/2006. As representatives of the family members, and family members themselves called for a new investigation right across the hall.
And those of us with common sense know why the commission was set up to fail.


1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for a Real 9/11 Investigation

AE911Truth will hold a press conference on Friday, February 19, at 11:00 AM at the Marines Memorial Club and Hotel in San Francisco. We will announce and honor the milestone of our achievement of obtaining 1,000 architects and engineers (A/E's) petitioning for a real investigation into the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers.
Invitations are being sent to more than 400 local AIA members, to many local, national, and international media outlets, and to more than 15,000 AE911Truth.org petition signers and supporters from around the world.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
The National Geographic Channel is looping their 9-11 debunking programs practically non-stop!


WTC Towers-First Explosive, Not Implosive Controlled Demolition

Watch and decide for yourself.


NRO's 9/11 'mock' plane crash set for 9:32am, drill included a smoke generator!

If it couldn't get any more coincidental than US spy agencies planning to have a mock plane crash into a govt building on -- of all days -- 9/11, their mock plane crash was to happen at 9:32am*, just 5min before the official time that the Pentagon would be hit (9:37am).


NIST WTC7 Report Parody Video

Do you work in a large office building? Then you should know about this recently discovered flaw in ALL EXISTING BUILDING CODES AND FIRE REGULATIONS that could cause the complete collapse of your office building. For more information on this phenomenon, please email NIST at [email protected]








And that's the 911 news for tonight folks which is what this thread is all about ... even though members of the peanut gallery are having problems comprehending that fact. No great lost though...


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 11, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Doesn't provide *evidence* for either view, although there sure is a lot of dust billowing out.





NoDrama said:


> I never said anything about *"proof"* now did I? Your Vagina get sand in it today or what? You sure do seem EXTRA sensitive today.


fuck, i'm sorry.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 11, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Nothing but the usual bullshit from the pawns of the peanut gallery ... nothing new there ... it pretty pathetic and low life when dummies cheer on war criminals and murders.
> 
> Now back to the real news ...
> FAA and NORAD Changed Records to Accord with Cheney Lies
> ...












nothing but a bunch of new aerial photos that may actually help you. it's been all over the news and internet all day. 




you really are "out of touch".


----------



## Hayduke (Feb 11, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> Doesn't provide evidence for either view, although there sure is a lot of dust billowing out.





fdd2blk said:


> nice way to come out shooting wildly.
> 
> i said NOTHING. simply posted a link. who the fuck are you replying to? it wasn't supposed to "prove" anything. it just some new pictures. lighten up a little.





NoDrama said:


> I never said anything about "proof" now did I? Your Vagina get sand in it today or what? You sure do seem EXTRA sensitive today.


And it's spelled Verginer dammit!



vandula said:


> i was able to find out way more info about this stuff on this one site http://desertrelief.org
> 
> had all this legal info, was pretty cool.


Dude why are you spamming 9/11 and chemtrail threads for your delivery bizz?...this is the second thread I have seen you amazed at all the good info you found on this one site...of your own creation!?!?

And here is a little feedback for your website...maybe consider putting where you deliver somewhere that could be found...I have the same area code...but I am at least 100 miles from you! Palm Springs? Yucca Valley? Blythe?...easy though...no need to pay you 60 bucks an eighth...I got this!

And another thing...If you list Purple Diesel as a "Sativa" and "SSH" as indica/sativa...I think something may be a little off.


----------



## mexiblunt (Feb 11, 2010)

The NORAD bit was interesting, and not all over the news today.


----------



## Big P (Feb 11, 2010)

mexiblunt said:


> The NORAD bit was interesting, and not all over the news today.


 
lies can be interesting


but thier is nothing more interesting than the truth 



let us smoke a while


----------



## Hayduke (Feb 11, 2010)

Big P said:


> lies can be interesting
> 
> 
> but thier[sic] is nothing more interesting than the truth
> ...


Damn dude...I think we can all agree on this one!


----------



## Big P (Feb 11, 2010)

Hayduke said:


> Damn dude...I think we can all agree on this one!


 

lol its all phonetic for me


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 12, 2010)

He didn't even catch on ...


----------



## Hayduke (Feb 12, 2010)

oh yeah...way to clever!


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 14, 2010)

Here's a nice op-ed about the resent photo that were release and shown on the corporate news ...
What the New 9-11 Photos Show
There is certainly a great deal of evidence contained in these hundreds of photographs, which will take some time to analyze, but one thing is very clear. The Twin Towers were turned into dust. The concrete and steel frame towers were reduced to immense clouds of dust and this was not caused by the potential energy of the buildings being released as they fell. The towers were pulverized through the use of many tons of super-thermite, which was discovered in the dust by Professor Steven E. Jones. Looking at these photos, one can see that the towers were exploded and turned into dust in the same instant. The photos validate the thesis, now proven, that the Twin Towers - and the lives within them - were destroyed by demolition charges and tons of super-thermite which had been applied to the concrete floors, probably on the undersides of the floor pans.

Here's a commentary about the courageous first responders and the government's refusing to help them ... 

 The battle of 9/11s ailing first responders
Safety was the first casualty at the Ground Zero clean-up as Mayor Giuliani, who had 30 months (two and a half years) to complete the clean-up, pushed workers to work day and night to finish the project in a mere eight months. In sharp contrast, the first responders in Washington, D.C., had to wear respirators to work at the Pentagon disaster site, no excuses accepted.
Of course, the workers were not racking up triple- to four-digit hourly fees plus expenses. They did get to inhale for some period of time Ground Zeros toxic brew straight from Pandoras open box. That would be . . .


Over 400 tons of asbestos, which inhaled in any quantity, cannot be expelled by the lungs.
90,000 liters of jet fuel containing benzene, a carcinogen that suppresses the immune system and causes leukemia.
Mercury from over 500,000 fluorescent lights that is toxic to the nervous system, and damagingespecially to the kidneys.
200,000 pounds of lead and cadmium from personal computers toxic to the respiratory tract, especially damaging to kidneys.
Polycystic aromatic hydrocarbons that cause lung, laryngeal and throat cancers.
130,000 gallons of transformer oil, which contains PCBs ad causes serious skin rashes and liver damage.
Crystalline Silica from 420,000 tons of concrete, sheetrock and glass (tiny particulates that lodge in the heart, causing ischemic heart disease).
http://www.bushstole04.com/911/panel_deception.htm9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Here' an interesting 11 minute video called THE AMERICAN IDIOT Oh so true ... they are right about the elite laughing at the gullible stupid american ... kiss-assJob=Just over broke 

And that's the 911 News ... good night and good news ...


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 14, 2010)

Keep the updates coming


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 14, 2010)

You know something I never thought about before? You know how the non conspiracy types always claim" How could they have planted all those explosives in such a short period of time"? Well those big buildings have dropped ceilings made of acoustic tiles, every ceiling in the place is like that, there is duct work , sprinklers, wiring and other stuff up there hidden from view. What if you just went along and placed magnetic explosive and or nanothermite devices to the underside of the floor above. The floor pans are made out of steel so it could quickly be deployed, easily installed and easily hidden from everyone. A long line of remotely detonated, magnetically attached explosive/cutting charge devices could easily have been placed in a short period of time. You just pop a ceiling tile out and place device and put tile back in, no one would be the wiser, EXCEPT when you do this it leaves dust particles all over everything from taking the tiles out. Can someone find those statements people made that when the went to work that fateful day there was dust all over everything???? Anyway just food for thought.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 14, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> You know something I never thought about before? You know how the non conspiracy types always claim" How could they have planted all those explosives in such a short period of time"? Well those big buildings have dropped ceilings made of acoustic tiles, every ceiling in the place is like that, there is duct work , sprinklers, wiring and other stuff up there hidden from view. What if you just went along and placed magnetic explosive and or nanothermite devices to the underside of the floor above. The floor pans are made out of steel so it could quickly be deployed, easily installed and easily hidden from everyone. A long line of remotely detonated, magnetically attached explosive/cutting charge devices could easily have been placed in a short period of time. You just pop a ceiling tile out and place device and put tile back in, no one would be the wiser, EXCEPT when you do this it leaves dust particles all over everything from taking the tiles out. Can someone find those statements people made that when the went to work that fateful day there was dust all over everything???? Anyway just food for thought.


yet al qaeda can't fly a plane into a building. 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 14, 2010)

Wow.... ur right...I never thought of acoustic ceilings. 

Still, it's a lot of skittering around up there.... now that I think about it, they probably used trained ninja monkeys to plant the explosives.

Anyway, just food for thought.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 14, 2010)

they have ninja monkeys? 

damn them.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 14, 2010)

[youtube]z2IYtUhf56c[/youtube]


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 14, 2010)

if you guys really want to know, i can explain the whole thing from start to finish... why it was done, everything.

i havent read this thread... but i assume you guys know that about a week prior to 911, the power was cut to the buldings for the first time ever in wtc history?

you know what the official explanation was?

they were installing new fiber optic cable into the buildings to make their internal networks run faster.

I forget the guys name, and the article is very hard to find these days as there is a task force that deletes the strong eveidences to 911...

but there was a guy that worked at one of the world banks, and he got in a big fight with his boss because he said that it was BS that they needed to shut down the power.

The day(s) they shut down the power NO ONE was to come to work on the floors where the GUYS IN HARDHATS were working.

So this ambitious world bank IT guy, comes to work on his day off, to pick a bone with this fiber optic boneheads who said they had to shut down the power to the 2 towers.

Guess what... he tried to talk to them... and they wouldnt talk to him

he filed an official complain with his boss and his company the next day that the guys didnt even have a clue about fiber optics, and were total assholes to him,a nd wouldnt even let him examine the new updated equipment that was being installed in the towers.

During the install... the reason why the power was cut...

cameras

They had to deactivate the security cameras so that there was no risk that it would be exposed what had been installed in the towers.

Now, bush's brother used to own the security company that held the contract to the wtc towers...

his brother resigned from the company, but still a close bus family friend held control of the company.

Guess what else happened for the first time in wtc history?

The bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the towers... and after the hardhat guys left? No dogs were ever allowed to return in the week leading up to 911.



Im sure by now you all know bin ladden was in an american hospital in dubai on setp 10th getting his kidneys flushed... and the cia showed up and escorted him out?

i can go on and on and explain the whole thing... but long long long story short... the truth hurts.

And not only will you hate your country... not only will you hate your leaders...

but in the end... you will hate yourself... because their excuse for doing all this shit... kind of makes sense.

So understand... there is a reason pres bush says the matrix is his favorite movie.

We are in it... there is a reality we are honestly too stupid to even notice.

We live in a world of illusion designed to keep us happy.

Just as we give pot plants whatever makes them happy and healthy...

world leaders do the same for us...

and like it or not... deep down inside... people want to fight about shit.

The key is keeping the fight out and away from the communities, and in designated areas called battlefields.

THe only way to keep battlefields going is to keep oposing teams going.

Only way to keep oposing teams going is to convince the masses of one team, that there is another team somwhere that is pure evil.

911 did just that. Along with misplaced over 300 billion dollars in gold that was held in world banks and the fed reserve bank that was below the twin towers....

but cnn didnt do a follow up story on the missing gold did they?

Shucks... iguess 300 billion in gold isnt that important... hell, why not ship all the wtc rubble to not just 1, but 4 different countriers, including india, and china...

thats a great idea... if no one robbed the gold before hand... lets just give every last ounce of gold containing rubble to other countries why dont we!!

reality... there was no gold in the rubble. It had already been taken.

They didnt want to keep the rubble in the states long enough for people to realize the gold was missing out of it.... otherwise that would have meant... look at the security cameras and look for bin laddens boys prior to 911 taking it...

oh shucks... only people in the building who could have taken it were the guys in the hardhats who shut off the power for the first time in history...

what IT/fiber optic company did they work for again? Wait... why isnt this company in the phone book?

Shucks.

Fuck it, if cnn and fox news (who get their information concerning war and terrorism from langley, cia headquarters) if they dont spoon feed me the answers... im not even interested.

WHo trained bin ladden? oh, the cia?

WHo was director of the cia when that all went down?

Oh, bush sr?

WHo was in the white house a couple days before 911? oh, bin laddens brother?

who escorted bin ladden out of the hospital in dubai? Oh, the cia?

damn... its like this circle of coincidence... almost like they are all friends

I wonder if they give a fuck about us when they just rammed remote control planes into buildings that had us inside?

damn, tough to be sure... they might like us...? maybe?

dont dig for the truth unless you are ready to understand that the reason lies exist is because people in high places dont believe you are capable of handling the truth.

IF you want truth, join the cia.

Otherwise, call a spade a spade, and just say you like speculating and having converstaion with friends... which is fine.

im just saying... the truth is there... most are too scared to take the neccessary steps to gain access to the truth of whats going on, and why its going on.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 14, 2010)

i think this kind of stuff is almost healthy to figure out which humans brains actually work and which humans just want to pretend that their team makes them perfect.

people who dont want to find truth, and just want to pretend they are the shit... are the ones who make fun of conspiracy people.

Granted, most conspiracy people have a bunch of half baked ideas....

but still, 911 was so blatent.

One of my favorite clues to 911... THAT THE WHOLE WORLD HAD ACCESS TO THAT DAY... was this puzzle

its like one of those thigns they give you in school, and you have to crack the puzzle...

ready?

THe morning of 911, and even weeks after 911, our country said we recieved no official threats.

But, within minutes of the second tower being hit, our media blamed bin ladden.

now think about this.

When does the media ever blame one person INSTANTLY, prior to any investigation... unless that person says they did it?

Guess what... all the supposed witnesses were dead. They ran into buildings. All other planes "crashed" soon after.

How can you come up with a name instantly... unless the person threatened to do it... OR the person didnt do it and you want to frame them for it.

Either way... the cia lies.

ANd they admit they lie.

So wheres the big surprise?

There isnt one. Welcome to reality that you for whatever reason dont want to join an organization that makes it blatently well known... that they keep secrets... that they lie.

Yes, its unconstitutional... but look at reality... the cia exists. They trained bin ladden, and suddam, and castro... and all the other super coincidentally hard to kill guys... that america has wars with.

you guys ever hear of something called population control?

you ever hear of genetics and that violent animals, can be killed,a nd if you keep the most peaceful and intelligent from every litter, over many generations, you can breed them into an intelligent domesticated species... like the cats and dogs we have today.

You think humans are exempt from this?

You think giving humanity a reason to go kill themselves off on a battlefield because they think killing another human being is going to solve a problem...

you think its coincidence that there is a law... a global law that says assassination of a world leader is illegal. They have to be captured and stand trial.

So we are over there to kill suddam the first time.... but we arent actually allowed to kill him? And we are there to save his people from him because he kills his people... but we cant kill him, but we kill them instead?

Its all right in front of your face.

youve either got the intelligence to crack the illusion or you dont.

And if you dont... in a weird way... its not your fault.

Getnetics limit how tall we get... and how well our brains reason.

The world leaders are evolving humanity.

They are lacing traps to prey on dumb people who want to use violence to solve problems.

And they want to protect communities where people decide they appreciate life and stay home and work for a living to earn what they want.

Thats their goal.

Not saying i agree with their tactics to make this goal occur... but i know beyond a shadow of a doubt thats whats going on.

For those of you troubled by this thing... this conspiracy... i hope this helps.



Other fun facts include the guy who worked in the pentagon who was in charge of figuring out what would happen to the pentagon if a plane hit it... specifically one of the 5 walls....

That guy retired from the pentagon... took a job with an airline company...

and his supposed plane, coincidentally got "hijacked" and ran into the exact wall of the pentagon that he studied while he worked at the pentagon.

Reality... his plane didnt hit the pentagon. It went under the radar, and transponder shut off at the west virginia, ohio, kentucky boarder... and his plane landed at a military base.

Meanwhile, a cruise missle, called a global hawk, picked up his transponder signal, and ran into the pentagon.

The faa guys argued with norad on the phone that the plane approaching the pentagon was not a comercial airliner due to the fact that it

-did a barrel roll

-was flying faster then the commercial jet could fly

-did a 270 degree turn directly over the pentagon, and dropped an abundant altitude before it slammed into the pentagon.

-the air traffic controller stated that not even the best air force pilot could have done that move ina commercial airliner, it was physically impossible.

And that is.. because it wasnt an airliner, it was a global hawk.

Biggest thing that baffles people is where did the real planes go and the real passengers.

Understand...

the cia... was formed... by the nazi elite when they "lost" ww2.

The nazi elite didnt lose ww2.

They got top jobs in america. And this was no coincidence.

They had it planned from the begining.

The nazi elites... are so smart, it will make you sick.

Skull and bones... is a german secret society that got ran out of germany.

Skull and bones, implimented the cia.

The first mission the cia did, was called PAPERCLIP... look it up on wikipedia

paperclip was to bring all the nazi elite to the states and change all their names, an put them in charge of the most important military facilities and offices.

90 percent of nasa mission control during apolo missions... ex nazis.

guys who went to area 51 ... ex nazis

guys who ran the cia... ex nazis.

And guess what 2 families... who had skull and bones ties... funded nazi germany through the union bank... prior, during, and even after america joined ww2...

the rockfellers, the harimans, and the bush family.

Prescott bush, gb sr's dad... funded nazi germany even after the usa entered the war.

This act was illegal. There was a fall guy, and the bushs and rockefellers got him back out of jail within a year.

It is no coincidence that g bush sr, became director of the cia.

it is no coincidence that the passengers aboard the planes on the days of 911... were killed, like cattle upon the planes landing, at undisclosed runways.

The same mentality that built ovens, and cooked a bunch of jews, currently holds the reigns in our country.

WW2 was a nazi elite trick to provoke the united states into creating a cloaked fascism... called the cia... which is completely unconstitutional.

They rule by fear... because you guys are too big of pussies to want to solve problems yourselves... you elect and hope that someone else will save your sorry asses.

Ben franklin said it best. "He who hands over his rights in exchange for safety, deserves neither rights nor safety"

Its not bushs fault. Its ours.

We are so into ourselves we fail to even check whats going on behind the scenes.

We are so full of pride and dillusional... that we are being owned... and will be marched to our deaths in the event of ww3 starting.

All comes down to iq.

First thing they do when you join the military is give you an iq test, if you get a high enough score, you aent sent to the front lines, you are kept safe at the pentagon, or the cia.

The human race is being evolved without humanity even knowing whats going on. This is why they dont want evolution taught in schools. Evolution is to stay a myth and noahs ark to stay fact.

They dont want you to take a look at the current evolution thats currently going on globally.

Think about it... if you can.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 15, 2010)

world leader believe that anyone who thinks 

Skin color

Which side of a line you were born on

Which flavor of god you were taught about

Which language you speak

they believe that these are all evidences that a persons brain cant reason properly.

They WANT wars to exist based on these groupings...

because if an individual follows like a sheep, into a battle that makes no sense...

then in their opinions, that person has proven their IN-ABILITY TO REASON... thus proving they are below the bar... and dont deserve the right to pass on their dna.

THey say that friendship goes a lot deeper than these groups... and it comes down to an individual case by case basis.

Stupid people dont have the brainpower to judge people one at a time...

they give up and just want to know what team is good and what team is bad.... and who to kill.

Its a trick... and if you fall for the trick... they have no guilt in helping you die.

Just as we dont let the weak, small yeilding pot plants reproduce...

they dont want the small iq humans making more babies.

bc small iq means inability to solve problems

Inability to solve problems means that when faced with a problem, you will be more likely to get violent.

People who choose violence instead of simply solve a problem...

These people are the problem.

THese people are the reasons wars start.

The world leaders are trying to evolve humanity into a harder to provoke species... by allowing the easily provokable to kill eachtoehr off on a battlefield.

Skin color, team... doesnt matter

Thats to keep you distracted from the real reality of whats going on... so that you as an individual dont realize you are losing... you worry about the team... that holds no importance.

Skin color is meaningless.

The nazi elite knew this.

Telling the german public that they were the best is just pride bubbling propaganda to get idtios to march to their deaths.

ww2 hadnt killed enough people when the united states agreed to start the cia.

hitler could have used the trains to haul ammo and tanks to the front lines.

90 percent of all jews killed happened in the last 45 days of the war.

The nazi elite felt that not enough people had died with faulty dna... so they hauled everyone to the ovens...

they already knew their new job in the us was secure

Its no coincidence that the FIRST mission the cia ever did... was to bring, not one, not half, but all the nazi elite to the states, and not tell the american public.

Unconstitutional.

The german public lost ww2

The nazi elite who did all the sick shit...

they won. They got a new country, with an even bigger war bidget, and they never stopped doing what they were doing in germany.

When nixxon and watergate happened, the pentagon papers got exposed and declassified.

The pentagon papers

were documents, that told of black budget stuff that went on in the cia and military bases behind the scenes.

Of the many things it listed, one of the more memorable facts wat that cia scientists were doing sick experiments causing us soldiers to die at a base in missouri.

These scientists were ex nazis.

This base in missouri? its the same base bush flew to to get his story straight prior to returning to washington.

AF1 left florida, went to missouri, and then returned to dc, on 911.

People are oblivious to the world around them...

and want to live in care bear, aladin, dream land that one day someone is going to come along and fix all their problems.

Guess who else had nazi ties? walt disney.

Sounds funny... but the nazis won ww2, they own us, and we dont even know it because were too fucking stupid.

Thats why 911 happened... its because they dont give a fuck, and there was a lot of gold under those towers.

They care less about us... than they did the german public who they hung out to dry.

They think in terms of individuals... not teams.

The fact that you were born here... doesnt mean shit to them.

If you get off your ass and join the cia and pass an iq test... now you are proving your worth as a human.

not saying its right or wrong... just simply saying...

this is whats going on... and if you cant see it... maybe the are right... maybe you are sub human.

think about it.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 15, 2010)




----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 15, 2010)

yah.... that's a no shit.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Feb 15, 2010)

heheheh. I actually read all the posts and find them very interesting.


----------



## Big P (Feb 15, 2010)

sherriberry said:


> world leader believe that anyone who thinks
> 
> Skin color
> 
> ...


 
wow sherri how old are you to have gain so much wisdom?


when did you enter history?

what country are you from

cuz I garantee it aint america


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 15, 2010)

Big P said:


> wow sherri how old are you to have gain so much wisdom?
> 
> 
> when did you enter history?
> ...



yeah, im white, and born in america.

now what genius?

How bout you do a bit of research on everythign i just wrote before you insult any of it, because theres not an ounce of it that hasnt been de classified, and cant be proven true.

problem is, cnn hasnt spoon fed it to your ass yet, so you are still unaware of the world you live in

internet is a great tool... it even works while you sit on your couch and smoke a bowl.

try using it..

heres a good start for a search list

Pentagon Papers
Project Paperclip
How many nazis worked at nasa (answer, over 90 percent)
Skull and Bones
Prescott bush + nazi


do those you ignorant toad, and see what you come back with.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 15, 2010)

ps, i like your profile pic.

the statue of liberty, that crown... its not supposed to be a crown... its supposed to be the sun behind the girls head, so when yu stare up at it, thats what it looks like.

not sure if you are christian or not... as i used to be...

but if you get off your ass and dig enough, youll find out that jesus is also depicted with a sun behind his head...

thats because the first religions were about the sun, and its return...because people used to get freaked out when it got cold out, and the crops died, so theyd start killling eachother and stealing.

The world leaders had to create stories so that the people would HAVE FAITH that everything would be okay.

They talked about the sun.. and how on dec 22nd it reaches its lowest point in the sky, and how on dec 25th, it climbs for the first time, and the sun is BORN AGAIN... and on that day, it lines up with orions belt, which back then, these 3 stars were called the 3 kings. And so on dec 25th, you know the sun is born again when the 3 kings line up with it.

This story is 8000 years old.

Christianity is mearly a plajurism of stuff thats been around forever.

That statue of liberty, is a world leaders symbol...

anyone with a sun behind their head represnets warmth and freedom, good, not evil

Anyone with an owl around, or an upside down star, represents negative and darkness.

Do your ape ass a favor and look at the bluepint of washington dc, and its streets, 

youll find the owl, and the upside down star.

the world leaders also have a clock of symbolism...

and this clock goes 1 3 5 7 9 11 13

13 is the end of an era, before they hit the reset button and put a society back into the dark ages.

9 11 was done on that day on purpose.

2012 ... is a controlled planned event, just as 911

and on 2013 13 is the key here smart boy...

things are going to be over for many many many people.

THere will be survivors, and then will start the game over.

The game is keep technology out of peoples hands for as long as possible...

because technology is how much destruction our ape asses can accomplish in one sitting...

and once there are nukes, and biological weapons, etc etc... war becomes obsolete...

and it starts to dawn on the masses..

wait... couldnt we accomplish the same thing without marching up a canyon and getting shot at?

world leaders not only want the iraqi public dead... they not only want bin laddens foot soldiers dead...

they want you dead...

IF you are unable to solve the problem without picking up a gun and getting violent...

its like a giant iq test...

and if it never dawns on you that sides of lines, colors of skin, language, name they call god, etc etc...

if it never dawns on you that this doenst make a person good or bad...

what makes a person good or bad is if that individual is positive, and brings more to the table in life than they consume... if they produce more than they destroy...

because if you have 8 billion people who want to solve proiblems with violence...

earth is going to be a shitty place

if you have 8 billion people who want to solve problems with their brain, and can solve problems wiht their brain.. to invent, create, produce...

cars, songs on the radio, tv shows, food, artwork, houses, etc...

these are the kind of people who make life better

so the trick is... how do we get all the destructive apes to go kill themselves... and die happily ever after?

and how do we protect all the people who dont mind working to produce what they consume in a day?

these are the only 2 teams that matter...

and the apes... get caught up in skin color, sides of lines, lebron james, jesus is my boy, etc etc...

its all a game for LOSERS WHO WANT TO BE WINNERS, AND ARE TOO LAZY TO GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND MAKE IT HAPPEN, SO THEY PRETEND THEY CAN JUST JOIN A TEAM BY SAYING THEY BELONG TO IT, AND THAT IN SAYING THEY ARE DEMOCRAT, CHRISTIAN, AMERICAN, ETC ETC.

by SAYING they are somthing... it automatically makes them better.

Wow... thats so impressive that you can talk... i know not all apes can do that...

you must be proud of yourself

So you SAY youre an american.

wow... thats amazing that you can SAY that.

dude... let me kiss your feet.

I mean... SAYING you are american... wow... you really are better than the rest of the world arent you.

I cant believe you can SAY that... such an impossible feat.

Damn, i wish i was surrounded by 8 billion people of your tallent who can talk and get go prideful about it.

Hey ape.. i mean genius... heres an ak 47... go tell bin ladden you are american and that you are better,a nd shoot him

I love your quote up there...

because the funny thing is... youve proven you are one of the apes who deserves to die.


if i would have SAID i wasnt american, or wasnt white... then in your little wallnut brain.. you would have concluded that im inferior to you.

Just because someone is born on your street doenst mean they cant be your enemy.

Based on your way of thinking based on your question you asked above....

I can already tell you are the last fucking human i would want on my team in the event of a large problem.

Hows that for reality?

go smoke another bowl genius.... and wait for the day your teams you SAY you are part of... come through for you and dont leave you hanging.

2012 is jsut around the corner.

You think world leaders arent going to take fulla dvantage of a date like that without re-instilling obediance on the masses by fulfilling a prophesy?

when all they have to do is LET the apes of the world start wars with eachtoher?

haha... think again.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 15, 2010)

i still cant get over how impressive it is that you and 95 percent of the people on this world can accomlish so much...

as they argue..

and TALK about what team they are on and how that team has all the answers, and its magically going to make everything better.

im one of the dumbasses who knows... if something is too expensive... printing more money isnt going to make it more afforable...

if theres 8 billion people, and not everyone can afford it... its not the economy's fault...

the reason 8 billion people cant afford is because 8 billion of the items have to be produced first...

and im not up to your caliber to spend all day in a coffee shop TELLING everyone what team to join...

im one of the dumbasses who finds out if theres a shortage of something, and if its too expensive... its an OPPORTUNITY for me to GET OFF MY ASS and make that product, and get paid a heafty sum for it BECAUSE ITS SOO EXPENSIVE...

and i jsut solved the problem by shutting the fuck up.. and creating what i felt there was not enough of.

Meanwhile...

the geniuses of this world...

who can spend all day TALKING...

my god.... you guys ... i dont know what we would do without you guys.

you SAY your an american... damn, you really are better than me... im not gonna lie.

I dont have the skill to brag about that.

Talking is very difficult for me.

I know talking solves so much.... and brings so much product into the world.

Please... talk... declare your team.

god damn you are special


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 15, 2010)

and you wonder why the world leaders dont feel bad when they run planes into buildings with you inside.

its probably because they figure anyone who actually cares about america...would join the military or the cia... and have enough intelligence to pass an iq test (isntead of talk about how sweet they are)

and then actually pull their weight and prove they are worth a damn.

i mean... whats the point of bombing iraq... when its apparent there are worthless human beings on this side of the ocean.

THe world leaders might be onto something?? who knows.

I know people like you arent helping them like us more... thats for sure.

Wow, you can talk... its like the pig on charlots web... you gonna sing us a song about how you are an american? wow... you are so special.. you are right... you are a winner... we cant wait to take advice from you


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 15, 2010)

sherriberry said:


> and you wonder why the world leaders dont feel bad when they run planes into buildings with you inside.
> 
> its probably because they figure anyone who actually cares about america...would join the military or the cia... and have enough intelligence to pass an iq test (isntead of talk about how sweet they are)
> 
> ...


----------



## Big P (Feb 15, 2010)

are you afraid of saying how old you are sherri?


not sure why you didnt answer the first questions but happily answered the others? and i didnt ask what color your skin was (seems you have an expectantcy that im a racist?) nice stereo typing, or where you were born I asked where you are from.




you have a lot of information in your head thats good.


but i think its time to separate the wheat from the chaff


if you think there is such deception going on and that is why many people are as you say "sheep"


wouldnt logic dictate that the same thing is probably happening with the liars teaching you that the other side is lieing.


so wouldnt the smart man choose the most probable scenario from both sides thereby drawing the most plausable scenario, the truth behind all the chest beatin


you are just parroting 1 thousand videos on the internet I have already viewed

you take as fact things that may not be fact.


Me i dont trust them, that or the other. 

i can tell you things with certainty


the nazis lost WW2


if they won as you say they did, and if they control america as you say they do,


why are most of banking and media and wealth controlled by Jews in Amerca?


is it because your a lier?

your statments about the nazi's are enough to paint you as a gulible baffoon

and a young one at that 


ofcoarse we took top nazi scietists, this is how we got the atom bomb first.


your a little kid i garantee it


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 15, 2010)

Truthers are simply gullible people and easily fooled.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

a little kid who is 30... thats me.

a moron who got deans list at purdue, and then attended 2 more schools

a moron who got a 1460 on his sat

a moron who jumped in his car, and drove to langely VA because he wanted answers.

a moron who is currently starting a multi million dollar web site that has been in the making for the past 3 years

a moron who has been trading stocks since he was 13

a moron who lived in miami fl for a a bit, and just enjoyed taking it easy and networking just to try and figure out how the mobs work

in face to face real life... im the easiest going person in the world... otherwise i would have been shot a long time ago

i parrot what are in internet videos? how about i remember life as it happened?

ill give you a few facts that werent in any internet videos... ready?

pres bush took a month long vacation to his ranch in tx the month prior to 911

he had only been in office a very short time.

no president has ever takent this kind of a vaction, and certainly not when they are jsut getting started.

The reason he did this was because its an american law that all who come and go from the white house have to be documented for the american public to examine.

by going to his huge ranch in tx, it made his meetins with the bin ladden family, the pakistan isi generals, and other key individuals... NON DOCUMENTABLE

one problem is... if you do enough homework on passports... like bin laddens brothers and cousins... their passports show that they were flying into the local airport by the bush ranch that same month.

Find that in an internet video for me.

or how about the real reason bin ladden was in the hospital in dubai??

the real reason his brother came to the white house the days before 911 was to bring a personal message to the bushes... and he wanted to be seen...

bush was furious that he did this.

the message was that bin ladden didnt want to be blamed for 911, and felt he would be double crossed, and there was no way that bush could protect him after he took the blame for 911... he got cold feet.

bin ladden checked into the AMERICAN hospital in dubai the days before 911, and was STAYING THERE... because he didnt want to be blamed for 911, so he figured if the news blamed it all on him, as it did, he would be in a documented AMERICAN facility, and TURN HIMSELF IN, and testify that he had nothing to do with 911.

THis is why the CIA had to come and FORCE HIM OUT.

The cia's message to bin ladden was that if he didnt cooperate, they would go ahead and kill him that day, and tell the rest of the world he is still on the loose...

so they let bin ladden pick... of course he decided to stay alive.

btw, 3 bbc reporters kept brining this up, and they all died in the months following 911, after the cia asked the reporters to stop talking about it. Coincidence?


See, what people dont understand is the bin ladden cia connection and how it all got started.

Pakistan... afghanistan... poppies... opium...

The world leaders have priorities... just like you and I.

And the top priority, that every world leader has agreed is that... blowing up earth, and ending all life with nukes or worse... is not acceptable.

The cold war was a trick for the masses... to gather every last ounce of plutonium and uranium, and lock it up in a vault, aka a nuclear silo... and then once it was all gatherd, dismantle and take it all to large storage facilities where the masses cant gain access.

What the world leaders are scared of are idiots who dont appreciate life... and thus conclude that there is a better one on the way at later date... heaven.

And that god... is going to reward them with heaven, even after they blow up this whole earth.

Sounds funny, but the fact is, there are suicidal idiots out there.

Now, imagaine for a sec that a suicidal idiot got his hands on just 100 nukes, and considering, russia, china, and america have well over 50,000 of them... 100 isnt that hard to get if you think about it.

Now lets say that guy puts all 100 in his basement, takes a few picutres, and then disperses them, and puts them all over the globe... and makes a news announcement, and says...

"Dear world... i dont like my life.... so make me king, or im going to commit suicide. Only problem for you guys is, i planted 100 nukes around the globe... so if you dont make me king, and i do die, they are all on timers and hidden, and unless my possy disarms them every couple days... we all die, and ala is going to give me 2738394 virgins, and you guys can all envy me while im getting my dick sucked"

This is what the world leaders know now. This is what world leaders have known since anchient egypt as even the bible talks about the arc, and how its a weapon of mass distruction that must remain secret from man for life to continue on this planet.

Im going to tell you right now... there is a weapon out there that makes a nuke look like a fire cracker. But thats neither here nor there...

The nazi elite knew they could do this with the nukes if they got them... but they also had enough brainpower to know that this life is not worht throwing away... so they came up with a better plan for taking over the world...the plans for ww2, and the cold war, prior to ww2 ever even starting.

The nazi elite... scouted groom lake, area 51... they were big into underground bases, had tons of them in germany.

Frankly, they wanted to be in a cool place, where no one ventured, with a strong economy.

They are an hour from vegas, in the middle of a desert, witha huge water supply, and a big flat area with mountains all around it to keep spies out.

The nazi elite had 3 programs they wanted to advance.

The missle project

THe shuttle project

And the saucer project

The saucer project always makes people laugh... but they actually built flying saucers in germany, with gas powered fan motors in the middle... bmw built the motors, all the scematics are declassified now and are viewable in the german patent office.

Each of these 3 projects had 10 steps.

It is important to know that the nazi elite had these goals prior to ww2 ever starting, and that they already knew about groom lake, prior to ww2 ever starting...

Its also important to know that the secret society in germany that spoke of taking over the world, by putting your friends in charge of every corner of the globe and pretending they are your enemy...

this secret society got ran out of germany, and relocated to a place called yale... in america... skull and bones.

Upon braking into skull and bones in the 70's, people found nazi symbols and egyptian symbols throughout the building.... no one has broken in since. Riddle me this batman... why would a secret society in the 70's have nazi symbols in it? we will let that marinate in all the stupid peoples heads for a while...

during ww2, the nazis completed the 10 step missle project with flying colors.

After ww2 these same men completed the 10 step shuttle program with flying colors... you know it better as nasa.

Over 90 percent of mission control and nasa employees were ex-nazis, brought over by the cia... and the cia was started by skull and bones... prior to ww2 ending... and once the cia was given permission to exist... literally the next day was when hitler ordered the use of the trains to kill the jews instead of further germany's progression across europe..... intersting....

The cover story for why america says it brought them all over here was to beat russia to the nuke... but lets get something straight...

there were about 30 nuke scientists...

And over 600 nazis broguht here by project paperclip.

The shuttle project people went to nasa in florida and texas.

And guess where the saucer guys went? groom lake, area 51.

And guess what everyone and their brother started seeing soon after in the 50's and 60's... flying saucers...

and its a fact that they had ones that flew in germany during ww2, bmw officials admit they saw them fly.

now.... sorry about the sidetrack... but thats info that most idiots dont seem to understand... like the guy above who says we brought all 600 of them over here to work on the a bomb... and the 570 who dont work on a-bombs coincidentally got top jobs at a new place called the cia, nasa, area 51, and a little base in missouri where they continued expirements on american soldiers, killing them, and telling their families that they were killed in battle.

so lets get back to pakistan...

pakistan is the export country for all the opium from the poppies from afghanistan.

Afghanistan is the farmers of the poppies, pakistan is the ones getting rich as they export it to the rest of the world.

The cia got spooked about the amount of money people in the pakistan mob/isi were getting in the 80's and the cia foiled their plots a few times in the 80's to get their hands on nukes.

People in pakistan are prone to suicide... people in middle east are prone to it.

lets face it.... how many suicide bombers are there from countries outside the middle east, vs the middle east?... sorry, its blatent reality the middle east has every other sector of the globe beat 100 to 1.

a quick search on the pakistan isi, and youll see that its common knowledge that they were funded by the opium trade. A smart terrorist is was mroe dangerous than a dumb one.

WHen you have a intelligence organization, and its people have more money than god... and they consider suicide as a logical option if they dont get their way... and they have enough money to buy 1000's of nukes, or kidnape a scientist who knows how to make them.... thats a problem.

enter osama bin ladden

Bin laddens father was a wealthy man, big into contruction companies, etc.

Bin ladden was religious. Thought drugs were bad and ruining his culture.

The cia latched onto that, trained him, and for 10 years, supported his mission.

His mission??

to stop poppy growth in afghanistan.

why would the cia care about that?

oh... because that ends the money train for the pakistan isi... brilliant.

in 1990, over 1/3rd of the worlds opium was grown in afghanistan.

Just prior to 911, bin ladden and his gang had done a great job of breaking legs of farmers who they caught growing it, and ambushing camels trecking through the mountains, carrying it to pakistan.

by sept, 11, 01... pakistan/afghanistan was producing LESS THAN 4% of the worlds opium.

PAKISTAN ISI HATED BIN LADDEN... he bankrupted them, and they couldnt kill him because he was dug in the mountains too well, and was always on the move. They sent countless search parties over a 10 year period to kill him.

USA CIA LOVED BIN LADDEN. He bankrupted the isi we were scared of.

by 911, things were sucking for the pakistan isi, who were rebel and independent from the nazi elite plan to control the world.

btw, the 600 nazis who came to america... yeah, they had friends... who went to russia too... so they basically took over the 2 major superpowers because they run both superpowers weapons programs and secret agencies.... and when you run a secret agency... you can tell the presidents whatever you want... and thus motivate the president into doing your bidding without the president even realizing you are already one step ahead and have an educated guess of how he will react when given certain information.

cia controls everythign the president knows, congress knows, senate knows... and langley supplies our media with what they know.

If langly says its bullshit... the media IS NOT ALLOWED TO AIR THE STORY...

thats power.

Over in russia...

Same thing... they got top jobs, and created the kgb.

Tip tops of the Kgb and cia work together, always have since day one... the only time a secret agent dies is when their superior officers didnt like them, so they would hang them out to dry and it preserves the illusion that the 2 are enemies for all the apes of the world who dont know whats going on.

The whole thing is a big magic show for dumbasses.

SInce the kgb and cia work together... we... as humanity are still here... and nuclear war hasnt killed us all yet because some wack job hasnt gotten his hands on a nuke yet.

This is pretty impressive if you stop and think about it... 50,000 nukes.. and not one in civilian posession.

now, ak 47's? they want you to have those... because you can start a fight and get shot at back...

ak 47's are like psticides for stupid people... pass them out and watch them kill eachother... darwinism at its finest.

anyway...

911...

pakistan's isi was starving... it was no longer the dream job it used to be so there was a lot of fighting going on internally over there.

cia (bushes) implimented a general in the pakistan isi who was one of their friends... like another bin ladden.

cia told bin ladden it was his turn to be a world leader just like suddam... he would be the bad guy for america to hate... but we would protect him just like suddam was protected.

at first, bin ladden was all for it... towards the end, he was scared, so he checked into the american hopsital where americans would witness him NOT making any phone calls or collaborating attacks.... that way he could stand trial, and get off easily

cia got wind when bin laddens brother came to the white house and told bush what was going on.... and i already explained all that.

k, so bin ladden gets kicked out of the hospital, and agrees to work with the cia again.

pakistan isi general that the bush's and cia trianed... guess where he is the morning of 911??... eating breakfast at the carlisle group with bush sr... former director of the cia.... former president of the united states.

Planes hit buildings... boom boom... and guess who was in front of the washington senate the next day giving america total permission to use pakistan as a staging ground to HUNT FOR BIN LADDEN???

you guessed it... bush's pakistan isi puppet general.

only problem is... the rest of the pakistan isi was throwing their tv;s across the room when they found out this guy gave the USA permission to use their bases...

guess what we did the next day...

we entered their bases.

Guess what else we did?

we overthrew the pakistan isi.

the isi, is now the cia, and the kgb... its all the same people running it all now.

no more worries about some wackjob in pakistan getting rich and blowing up the whole planet... at least not in pakistan....

see, apes think in groups and teams... so if anyone in the isi, cia, kgb... gets abitious and tells their superior officer that they are going to go kill the enemy leader or have access to a nuke, etc... what that individual doenst know is that up the chain of command... is a person... who will rat them out to the other team... and make it look like an accident that ambitious individual got killed.

This si what bin ladden does to all the terrorists who follow him. he gives away his location, takes the ones he lieks with him, and a cruise missle comes and waxxes all the wackjobs who want to blow shit up.

its a global system.

THe one world govt already exists. They say it doesnt so that you dont notice it does. Its not rocket science folks.

and meanwhile... afghanistan is crying because bin ladden is breaking their legs, and killing their income from poppies...

so what does the cia decide to do after gainign control of the isi post 911?

hey afghanistan... grow all the poppies you want... we will control the drug trade and make sure the money doenst get into the wrong hands...

and guess what... poppy production in afghanistan as of 2004? not 4% anymore.... try 38 percent of the worlds total poppy production.

And now our cia controlls all that money and monitors who the bad guys are, and what they are doing... and the bad guys dont even know they are being watched... they think their leaders are excited retarded apes who think if you blow up the other team its going to solve all the worlds problems and plasma tv's and ferraris are going to rain from the sky.

Our cia... runs the fucking world.

When someone dies in the cia, or anything bad happens... its because they LET it happen... there arent mistakets as your imagination would assume there are.

This world.. has satelites... watching everything... they can rewind the photos. The photos taken are now about the size of georgia... a single photo... is so large... they can zoom in on the photo AFTER THE FACT.. and see things crystal clear.

So lets take bin ladden for instance...

they almost get him with teh cruise missle but he gets away on his goat...

all they would have to do is rewind the pictures taken... see him... and then fast forward to real time like tivo... and watch wher he goes, and pick him up on real time.

If you do something bad enough... doesnt matter how good of a criminal you are.. the cia can rewind the pictures of life... watch you do it... and fast forward to wherever you are now.

Guess how many satalites we have up in the sky?

over 50x more than civilians are told.

but guess what... apes... with low iq's... are too stupid to understand any of this apparently...

so when bush says... we need help hunting bin ladden, heres a machine gun... and any dumbass who doenst say "lets try using the satelites"

that dumbass WANTS to be violent... they think the world needs their apeness.

Yep... we need them to march up a canyon and have a bullet split their skull in 2.

If you cant figure out that in the 60's there were satelits that could catch bin ladden, let alone in 2010... well then... we are in no danger of you invinting a plasma tv, or a faster car, or solving any problem for that matter... the best problem you can solve... is to eliminate your fualty dna from the gene pool that cant see throug the blatent conspiracy behind 911.

WHen i questioned the person i did about 911, once i got deep enough into things... i insulted the guy... i said if you are going to do a conspiracy... at least make it not noticable...

but jsut like car manufactureres put in cheap transmissions so you have to buy another car when it breaks...

i was surprised to find out they made 911 not add up... ON PURPOSE

they dont want to kill off the people whos brains work.

NO ONE WHO THINKS 911 WAS A CONSPIRACY IS IN ANY HURRY OF RUNNING AWAY TO AFGHANISTAN.

Its brilliant.

and im done talking for now.


----------



## juleswinnfield (Feb 16, 2010)

hooly fuck...


----------



## Big P (Feb 16, 2010)

sherriberry said:


> a little kid who is 30... thats me.
> 
> a moron who got deans list at purdue, and then attended 2 more schools
> 
> ...


 

dude it seems you may be borderline skizofrenic'


let me tell you a few things about myself

I was born in the middle east, I speak arabic

I have an iq of 1400


i have freinds who have met bin ladins brother that you speak of

its not a secret that the binladin family was close with the bush admin, they were flown out of the country after 9/11 for thier safety by the bush admin under no, that is zero secrecy


now riddle me this insaniac, why would bush and his evil cronies wait till after the 9/11 attacks to fly the binladins out the country for their safty?

why not do it secretly the day before? to thwart the "ALL Knowing" people like you


heres another thing you dont even consider


do you know how to detect if somone is lieing?

many people are trained in this, I am as well

I can tell you without a doubt,

G W Bush had not prior knowledge that the attacks were coming on 9/11


I have evaluated countless, hundreds of hours of G W bush, at press conferences speechs and during the attacks,

its clear that he is genuine if you take all his hundreds of hours of speaking and use it as a basline, and his constact fumbles and anxiety infront of the camera.

then observe him during and shortly after the attacks you can determine that he had no idea

someone like bush is easyer to read. 

if it was Obama it would be much harder to read him because he is a very skilled lier


you every been dignosed with any disorders?


you drove to langly?


also heres a question for you, why did the nazis take all this time to perpetrate the 9/11 attacks, seeing that most of them that were brought the USA are all aready dead


why do they allow jews to control america?


there are so many holes in your story a man of your IQ can find them easily no?


one last thing i als ment to ask,

you make write some tall tales with zero links to back it up. where did you get this infomation???

link pls.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 16, 2010)

IQ and gullibility are not connected.

Sherri....ur very gullible.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 16, 2010)

i pray to god this is all copied and pasted from a folder somewhere, because if that is just ranting, ...... hooooooooo boy.


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 16, 2010)

lol i thinks its just a big rant


----------



## Radiate (Feb 16, 2010)

You should get into writing books Sherri. You'd put Tom Clancy to shame in no time flat.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

Big P said:


> G W Bush had not prior knowledge that the attacks were coming on 9/11
> .


 

lol, you just undid whatever iq test said yours was high.



let me explain it to you like this.



in this world, there is no perfection... there is variety and tradeoffs.

There is no perrfect pot plant.

So imagine for a sec, instead of races, we had species of pot.

Over here you have white widdow, over there og cush, over there g13, etc etc

And each of these species... had a king...

and that king knew, that even tho he was proud of what he was and his species.... that there were some sick plants with bad dna mutations...

so if there was someone who rose above trying to decide which strain was the best... and realized that all strains bring flavor to the world...

the way that person would think is.... NOT to eliminate ALL g13... but eliminate the individual ww plants we dont like, eliminate the individual g13 plants we dont like, eliminate the og cush plants we dont like.

and the king of og cush, the king of ww, and the king of g13, cant argue with that... it makes sense.... but if they do feel bad about killing their own species... the way they do it to clear thei conscience is to trade lists with eachtoehr...

heres the plants on my team i cant stand who plan on killing you king of og cush.

heres the plants on my team i cant stand who plan on killing you king g 13

The kings lives are more important to eachtoher than yours.

The system is already in place where the kings can trade information to protect eachtoher.

genetics are real.

The reason why humans think they are exempt from dna and negative mutations is because we have a bunch of fairy tales that we are special.

The reality is, we are no different than pot plants.... 

and instead of being singled out and being told... hi, welcome to earth, oh btw, your dna fucking sucks, your not allowed to have kids or live past the age of 25 because we cant stand you.. and we know its not your fault, its just shitty dna... sorry about your luck....

instead of telling people that harsh reality... weve instead created an illusions to make them feel special as they die.

THe illusion is that there is one SPECIAL skin color.... one SPECIAL side of a line to live on, one SPECIAL name for god...

and guess what... YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TEAM!!!

Arent you excited!

so... for your team which is absolutely perfect and special...

will you please forfeit your life since you did poorly on this military iq test, please march up this canyon over here... our satelites say this is where he is... goodluck.... FOR THE TEAM!!!!

either you are too stupid to understand it...

or you are to ashamed to accept that a trick so simple has worked on you for so many years.





THeres a reason royalty only let their kids marry royalty... and from other countries...

if royalty actually cared about the countries... this wouldnt be allowed.

instead, they look at it as ... the strongest g13, crossed with the strongest white widdow.

the only time the worry about the teams and people marrying from another team is when it would unite to battling countries...

the world leaders need the battles to exist... its the trash can for fucked up pot plants




the most intelligent people of this world have a very simple trick that works great on apes....


over here you have TRUTH...........................................and way over here.... REPUBLICAN..... and DEMOCRAT


and the apes have this ignorant rule that when given 2 opinions... truth has to lie somewhere in the middle... lol

so the cia plays you guys like fools....

they create opposing opinions... that are a mile away from the truth.

ANd their informants inform the democratic party one way, and then the republican party another way.... and everyone says that the other team doesnt have the whole truth...

they do this with the media too...

and we prove our ignorance by arguing about facts taht arent even true





for instance... post 911, the big argument between the democrats and the republicans was

DID THE BUSH FAMILY OR THE CIA HAVE WARNING OF 911 HAPPENING?

THe question in itself is a lie.

The truth is, key people in the cia, norad, and the bush family... are the ones who conducted 911.

Yes they had a warning... they had an over 10 year warning as they manipulated project northwoods... a mission presented to kenedy back in the day to do the exact same thing over miami.

to answer your silly question about why bin laddens family was here???

because bin ladden told them he wasnt doing it... and they all thought this would make pres bush call the whole thing off.

So they thought there was no problem.

THen once the planes slammed, boom boom...

they knew their credibility was toast on american soil...

so bush said, whats it gonna be guys?

you wanna get out of the country, we will help, you do you like your odds of trying to blame the whole thing on me right now and not getting shot?

stupid fucking people, dont understand life, and think that things are going to go the way thier ignorant imaginations say they will because they watched too many disney movies as a kid.

Im not telling you guys this so you respect me...

im telling you guys this so you snap out of it... and if you dont... ive done my best today to try and help people who are searching for truth...

if i wrote a book, or made ayoutube video, ive already been informaed a long time ago the consiquence is death.

no one is above death... not kenedy, not regan, not me

bullets hurt, i dont want to get hit by one... its that simple.

Keeping truth out of the mainstream debate is all that the world leaders ask.... its fine to talk about it here and there, as long as this scenario doesnt end up on fox news.



sorry if you are a pot plant that the rest of the world wants thrown in the trash can before it exists any longer...

you know who you are.

Disney movies and religious bribes will fill your pride right back up if this information hurts too much.

Sorry dna is a real thing... sorry humans have it.

Sorry someone told you that your iq's were high

i think they just said you were high... iq wasnt part of the sentence


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

further... idiot up there who says bush didnt know...

its been admitted that we did know... 

first, off, condi rice called her friend in cali and told him not to fly on 911... the days before.

So condi knew nad bush didnt?

second...

The morning of 911, we blamed bin ladden INSTANTLY... as soon as the second tower was hit...

bin ladden, bin ladden bin ladden bin ladden... all over the news.

Let me ask you something?

How can you accuse a person of doing something.. unless they tell you ahead of time they are going to do it?

Or

how can you accuse a person of doing something, unless you know they didnt, but you want to put the blame on them and know its a lie?






Ready to turn your brain on monkey, who thinks he has a high iq?



Here in america... we dont just throw out names of who we THINK did something....

if there is a murder... and all the evidence points to a sustpect, and we have a witness who says she saw it happen....

our media IS STILL NOT ALLOWED TO NAME THAT PERSON UNTIL THEY ARE ARRESTED AND CONVICTED.

The morning of 911.... there were no witnesses... if there were, they all hit buildings and are dead.

The morning of 911, bin ladden didnt call the US and say, 

yo guys, that was me!

so monkey boy.... how the fuck does our media get clearance from langley to pinpoint an attack on a person... before they even have a chance to conduct an investigation?

And based on these powerful questions...

the cia and bush family has changed their story that they did infact know it might happen....

but this is still a lie.... they are simply saying this because the only other solution is that bin ladden didnt do it, and they wanted to frame him.

is this all adding up? i know its tough when all you have is a fucking walnut between your ears

and you are POSITIVE that bush had no prior knowledge.... AFTER hes admitted now that he did?

And condi called her friend in cali and told him not to fly?

lol?

dude... save your intelligence for someone whos brian doesnt work


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

as for gulibility is concerened....

you guys are gulible that a politician can save an economy when the only 2 solutions to saving an economy are

produce more product, so that more people can afford it

or reduce the number of mouths to feed.



people have this awesome disney movie belief that gold and cash, interest rates, tax cuts, etc etc are going to make things more affordable for them.



The only thing that makes something more affordable... is when someone works harder to make more of them... thus allowing everyone to afford it.

All a politician does is swing the scale back and forth on which individuals lose and which ones win...

but as a globe? as a country? no politician can help everyone.

because the shitty pot plants.. the ones who prove they cant think and thus the world leaders want to throw them in the trash can...

the shitty pot plants believe.... that there is some sort of a real possible way, for them to work less, and be able to consume more...

and that a political party, or a religion, or eliminating another team... is oging to make this dream occur.

think about it... if EVERYONE works less.... and consumes more (definition of a better economy).... where are the products coming from?

The tooth fairy?

so instead... we live in a world... that there there is a winner, there must be a loser. Nascar race, baseball game... doenst matter

wher theres a winner, theres a loser.

So, the world leaders understand this...

and this is why they arent actually worried about helping the masses be able to afford more cell phones or bigger houses.... when the masses arent willing to get off their ass and provide an equal amount of product and service back in exchange for the products and services they want to consume.

SO youve got world leaders... who got off their ass, took risks... and got to the top.

They are friends with eachtoher... just like kobe lebron shaq, all these guys on oposing teams, chill with eachtoher after the games and not you.

You might pretend you are on one of their teams, because they LET you, so they can take your money as you buy a jersy...

but like it or not... the guy you pretend you are on a team with... he hangs out with the guy you pretend is the enemy.

the biggest og cush plants, the biggest yeilding ww plants... the biggest yeilding g13 plants.... are not the enemy.

The ones who dont produce shit, and still sit there and soak up light and nutrients, ... they are the enemy.

The world leaders... veiw your average joe, who doenst bring anything impressive ot the table.... as the enemy.

They want you ass in the trash can... its that simple.

Are they dumb enough to tell you that? Some are... suddam, castro... some of them dont give a shit. But the smart ones... play the game... they trade lists with the other team... and they have the oposing team do their dirty work.

does this make sense monkey?


----------



## Antidisestablishmentarian (Feb 16, 2010)




----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

lol, like i said... if you guys dont want to believe me, its fine with me...

my conscience is clear that i did my best today to try and help people avoid their deaths in the near future.

not falling for the bs and being able to reason, and understad that work ahs to be done, and its no ones fault... its just life... and killing someone isnt gonig to make anything better...

if you understand that... AND DONT COMPLAIN BUT INSTEAD, WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING YOU DONT LIKE, YOU GET OFF YOUR ASS AND HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH A SMILE ON YOUR FACE... when the time comes in the next 2 years... your odds of death will be reduced greatly..

or believe everything is the other party, the other team across the ocean, and bin laddens fault... and that you deserve a better economy..

and the world leaders think in the back of their minds... what makes you think you deserve shit? how about a bullet through your face because you wont stop complaining about stupid shit that doenst make a bit of sense in the first place, and you are nothing but dead weight to begin with? how about that ape?


----------



## jberry (Feb 16, 2010)

anyone ever heard of Paul Laffoley? he helped design many of the floors of the world trade center north tower before being fired for trying to push the idea of putting in emergency bridges every 5 floors for evacuation in case of a fire in one of the towers...he is a very smart and unusual person with some very advanced and interesting ideas...

Here is something from Paranoid magazine i found interesting:

"The Grand Hotel, I learned, was originally commissioned in 1905 to be built on the same land as the World Trade Center buildings, but the architect - Basque-born Antoni Gaudi (perhaps where we get the term 'gaudy') - was double-crossed by an American entrepreneur. The magnificent Venusian-looking tower, which consisted of several soft-nosed bullet forms topped by a spiked spherical observatory, was never built. 



However, if it had been built, Paul Laffoley explained, it surely would have withstood a strike by airplanes. The structure of Gaudi's creation was as sturdy as a mountain. No "bird" could have flown into the Gaudi air space. Paul wondered if Gaudi had put a curse on the land.​ 
Paul explained that he had worked on the WTC buildings as a student architect, and he knew why the buildings had "pancaked" the way they did. He said the X-bracings on the exterior of the building were bolted, not fused. The bolts had given way. 

He described the towers as two white elephants - "file cabinets" which had been built in defiance of normal building codes. He had begun work on a proposal to build Gaudi's cathedral as a memorial on that spot, which was the only way to turn the curse around."


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 16, 2010)

sherriberry said:


> lol, like i said... if you guys dont want to believe me, its fine with me...
> 
> my conscience is clear that i did my best today to try and help people avoid their deaths in the near future.
> 
> not falling for the bs and being able to reason, and understad that work ahs to be done, and its no ones fault... its just life... and killing someone isnt gonig to make anything better...


You have to realize sherriberry that members of the peanut gallery actually enjoy getting it up the ass by the government ... that's why they will suspend science and facts, and buy the bullshit about skyscrapers design to withstand plane impact and fire can come crashing straight down in seconds. They even have a play book they go by ... I posted it a long time ago, now they put their playbook in a video ... check it out ... look at the comments posted in this thread from the peanut gallery ... and then watch this video ... they follow it to the letter! The peanut gallery loves to be lied too ...and insults anyone that doesn't like it too ...check out this very revealing video of their motives ... got them right down to the T ... just like the disinformation play book I posted way back on page 120 post #1196 ...

How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
[youtube]kG4yGICFsi8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

What did I tell ya? Got them down to a T! I like the last part about the video being sponsored by faux news ... too funny!

Now check out this video ... 
Evidence
[youtube]iAvqLJSphjI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Hard evidence ... of course the peanut gallery will ignore any facts as stated in the last video ... if they start accepting facts, they are afraid the government won't do them up the ass anymore... 

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=10122Al Gore on 911
I'm sure St. Al of the Gore is singing a different tune now ... 

Here some news on the war criminal cheney ...
Cheney Exposes Torture Conspiracy 
 ​ If the United States had a functioning criminal justice system for the powerful  not just for run-of-the-mill offenders  former Vice President Dick Cheney would have convicted himself and some of his Bush administration colleagues with his comments on ABCs This Week. 

Yes it is too bad we don't have a functioning criminal justice system ... 911 could have been prevented as well as the election fraud that is taking place. If we had a functioning criminal justice system we would have had a real investigation back in 2001. *That is the ONLY reason it has not been a real investigation. *

Good day and good news to you all.


----------



## Big P (Feb 16, 2010)

once again there is not a single link to your claims sherriberry


why did you not post up the evidence?


you said 3 bbc reporters were shot by the CIA for speaking out?


where?


where is the story where is the links? and the links to every other batshit crazy thing you have been posting lol


i think you a lier sherri berry

send me a link to your multi milliondallar website


oh wait im sure you will have a nice and tidy excuse on why you cant show it to me


all this talk about teams and races and undesirables and nazis, you seem very into race hatred and infirior beings or as you like to call them APES?


youve got problems kid.

and your not 30, but nice try. i can smell ya a mile away.


----------



## Big P (Feb 16, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> You have to realize sherriberry that members of the peanut gallery actually enjoy getting it up the ass by the government ... that's why they will suspend science and facts, and buy the bullshit about skyscrapers design to withstand plane impact and fire can come crashing straight down in seconds. They even have a play book they go by ... I posted it a long time ago, now they put their playbook in a video ... check it out ... look at the comments posted in this thread from the peanut gallery ... and then watch this video ... they follow it to the letter! The peanut gallery loves to be lied too ...and insults anyone that doesn't like it too ...check out this very revealing video of their motives ... got them right down to the T ... just like the disinformation play book I posted way back on page 120 post #1196 ...
> 
> How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
> [youtube]kG4yGICFsi8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
> ...


 

and growrebel is batshit crazy too thats why you guys agree


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 16, 2010)

sherriberry said:


> lol, like i said... if you guys dont want to believe me, its fine with me...
> 
> my conscience is clear that i did my best today to try and help people avoid their deaths in the near future.
> 
> ...


It is a party issue..... only the hard left thinks it was Bush/Cheney ... no one else statistically. 

It's also a common sense issue....and most truthers fail this litmus test miserably.... and consistently.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> It is a party issue..... only the hard left thinks it was Bush/Cheney ... no one else statistically.
> 
> It's also a common sense issue....and most truthers fail this litmus test miserably.... and consistently.



Dude, youre an idiot... i grew up a conservative, and i still agree that those who earn money deserve to keep it, and let the dick heads who want to sit around and do nothing starve.

everything youve said about me is 100% opposite of reality

These days i dont belong to any party...

and who said im mad about the fact that bush did what he did?

you make many poor assumptions.


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

once again there is not a single link to your claims sherriberry

Im not here to prove one way or the other... you think i need your aproval or need you on my team? why would i want an ignorant fool who has had 9 years to figure out what i had figured out before 2002?

why did you not post up the evidence?

heres a good website to get started... evidence is all around you... problem is your an ape who cant fathom the fact that belonging to a team isnt going to bring you victory... and you are still a loser

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bin_laden_ties.html

you said 3 bbc reporters were shot by the CIA for speaking out?

hey idiot.. i didnt say shot. I said died... coincidentally they were the 3 that wouldnt let the dubai hospital story die... why dont you get off you ass and look it up yourself moron

where?


where is the story where is the links? and the links to every other batshit crazy thing you have been posting lol


i think you a lier sherri berry

send me a link to your multi milliondallar website

yeah, like im going to send you a link to my business so you can throw me under the bus that im writing anti bush stuff on an mj forum.... right....

oh wait im sure you will have a nice and tidy excuse on why you cant show it to me

at least your brain figured out one thing correctly

all this talk about teams and races and undesirables and nazis, you seem very into race hatred and infirior beings or as you like to call them APES?

i call individuals apes. 

Do you or dont you believe in dna? DO you or dont you know that humans and apes share 98.5% of the same genetic code?

Do you or dont you agree that intelligence is a gray scale... that no 2 people are the same?

Do you or dont you agree that if a person is dumb enough... they are moving in the direction of an ape genetically vs in the positive more intelligent direction?

I dont believe race has anything to do with intelligence... i believe that within all races, within all countries, within all religions... there will be born idiots, and there will be born intelligent individuals.

The teams are to distract the dumb fucks such as yourself.

Its a game... and if you fall for it... thats the filter... anyone who cant think outside the box the world leaders put you in... prove they dont deserve any special privilages because they arent even human... on the level that some of us are.

Apes follow the group... they are more worried about impressing EVERYONE rather than searching for truth.

If the world leaders made truth the common knowledge... there would be no seperation.

SINCE DEATH HAS TO OCCUR TO CONTROL POPULATION

the world leaders use lies as a tool to keep the masses in the dark... and thus, ANYONE WHO CAN ESCAPE THE PAPER BAG, EARNS THE RIGHT TO SURVIVE.

once you know whats going on... you are informed whats going to happen next... its a game. its planned

you think its coincidence that in 2000 the 20 dollar bill was reformed, and that if you fold it like a paper airplane theres the twin towers on one side burning and the pentagon on the other. This is a work of art... a work of art by an individual in the fed reserve who already knew what was going to happen.

The people in high places dont care about teams based on territory... skin color, names of gods.... 

they believe in teams based on people who get off their ass and they find interesting... and anyone who doenst rise to the top... thats who they want dead first when the economies start to go to shit.

I dont care if you dont believe me... its not hard to figure out if what im saying does or doesnt make sense...

if it doenst make sense to you.... I DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW WHATS GOING ON... I WANT YOU DEAD AS MUCH AS BUSH DOES

does that make sense ape?

youve got problems kid.

and your not 30, but nice try. i can smell ya a mile away.

buddy, you are an idiot.... how old do you think i am?

how could i have attended 3 different colleges if im a kid?

how fucking stupid are you?


----------



## sherriberry (Feb 16, 2010)

dont waste your time asking me to identify myself on an mj forum... its not going to happen, sorry buddy


but ill give you a hint... there is video footage of me on the internet from back in the year 2000... so unless i was a minor and made the news back then... rest assured... ive been over the age of 18 for at least 10 years.

sorry you cant figure out who i am to make my life shitty... sorry buddy


----------



## Big P (Feb 16, 2010)

dont worry i have no ill will towards you my friend


its ok


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 16, 2010)

grow and sheri sittin' in a tree
k-i-s-s-i-n-g
first comes love
then comes marriage
then they both go crazy


----------



## Big P (Feb 16, 2010)

[youtube]1pg0mQHYc-0[/youtube]


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 16, 2010)

Big P said:


> and growrebel is batshit crazy too thats why you guys agree


I thought the term used by the debunkers was "MoonBat"?


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 16, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> It is a party issue..... only the hard left thinks it was Bush/Cheney ... no one else statistically.
> 
> It's also a common sense issue....and most truthers fail this litmus test miserably.... and consistently.


Jeezus CJ, you really believe yourself? Only the left thinks 911 was a sham eh? Wow that couldn't be any less true. Its not a lie if your ignorant of the truth, your just misinformed or misled.


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 16, 2010)




----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 17, 2010)

Yes, the issue basically has traction only with the left. 

The entire truther conspiracy is politically driven.... pay attention son.


FDD..... that child needs some government health care... he'll be fine.


----------



## NoDrama (Feb 17, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, the issue basically has traction only with the left.
> 
> The entire truther conspiracy is politically driven.... pay attention son.
> 
> ...


So if it is Politically driven, what is the truther Agenda then? Are they asking for government positions? Are truthers all running for office this year? Do you have any kind of proof of Politically driven truthers who just want to gain power in politics?

Its not political at all IMO. People just want the truth, and they all know that what the USG said happened is NOT truth.


----------



## Big P (Feb 17, 2010)

its a way for liberals to make republicans look like this:


you cant be this blind you just choose not to see it

































i dont wanna post the thousands of other photos


----------



## Big P (Feb 17, 2010)

NoDrama said:


> So if it is Politically driven, what is the truther Agenda then? Are they asking for government positions? Are truthers all running for office this year? Do you have any kind of proof of Politically driven truthers who just want to gain power in politics?
> 
> Its not political at all IMO. People just want the truth, and they all know that what the USG said happened is NOT truth.


 
yes there are truthers running


one of the presidents own appoitees is an admitted comunist and 9/11 truther

when this was discovered there was an outcry and he resigned

but he is still a big played in obama admin but in the backround

his group is the one that wrote the stimules bil if you can believe that:

*White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism*






Van Jones, pictured at the National Clean Energy Summit 2.0 on August 10 in Las Vegas. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

*Updated 2:52 p.m. 9/6/09*
_By Scott Wilson and Garance Franke-Ruta_
White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday after a simmering controversy over his past statements and activism erupted into calls for his ouster from Republican leaders on Friday.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sunday explained the resignation on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," saying, "Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual." The president does not endorse Jones's past statements and actions, "but he thanks him for his service," Gibbs said.
A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter, said Jones's past was not studied as intensively as other advisers because of his relatively low rank.
Jones's position did not require Senate confirmation, so he avoided the kind of vetting Cabinet officials were subjected to. In addition, as an adviser to the Council on Environmental Quality, rather than to Obama directly, his past was not reviewed to the same degree as the more senior "assistants to the president" and other top advisers inside the West Wing.
The result was the revelation of a controversial past that, administration officials acknowledge, caught the White House off guard.
"He was not as thoroughly vetted as other administration officials," the official said. "It's fair to say there were unknowns."
The announcement that Jones was stepping down came minutes after midnight Sunday morning. "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
He continued: "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."
Jones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war" and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.
His one-time involvement with the Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist roots, had also become an issue. And on Saturday his advocacy on behalf of death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, threatened to develop into a fresh point of controversy.
Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck launched the drive against Jones and all but declared war on him after a group Jones founded in 2005, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist. 
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called on Jones to resign Friday, saying in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."
Senator Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) urged Congress to investigate Jones's "fitness" for the position, writing in an open letter, "Can the American people trust a senior White House official that is so cavalier in his association with such radical and repugnant sentiments?" On Saturday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote on his Twitter account, "Van Jones has to go."
Jones's resignation was foreshadowed Friday when Gibbs gave only tepid support for him when pressed, saying that Jones "continues to work for the administration." He declined to state that the adviser enjoyed the full support of President Obama, instead referring questions to the environmental council where he worked.
Jones, a towering figure in the environmental movement, had worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality since March. He was a civil-rights activist in California before turning his focus to environmental and energy issues, and he won wide praise before joining the Obama administration for articulating a broad vision of a green economy Democrats could embrace.
White House adviser David Axelrod, on NBC's "Meet the Press," said Sunday he had not spoken with the president about Jones. "The political environment is rough, and so these things get magnified. But the bottom line is that he showed his commitment to the cause of creating green jobs in this country by removing himself as an issue, and I think that took a great deal of commitment on his part," he said.
On FOX News Sunday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich declined to criticize Jones directly, though Alexander did question why the Obama administration had appointed so many issue czars.
"I don't think he's the issue," Alexander said. "I think the czars are the issue."
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean rallied to Jones' defense, saying he had signed the controversial 9-11 "Truther" petition by mistake.
"I think he was brought down. It's too bad," Dean said. "I think it's a loss for the country."
_Staff writers Anne E. Kornblut and Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report._



heres a truther who is running for office that glen beck just fucked now her poll numbers crashed and she was in the lead!!!

*Debra Medina self-destructs on Glenn Beck radio show*

*Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina appeared on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning and made a lot of news when she wouldn't take a position on whether the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.*


Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina (not pictured) appeared on Glenn Beck's radio program this morning and could have shot herself in the foot when offering no opinion on whether the US was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
NEWSCOM/FILE

Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina imploded on the Glenn Beck radio program this morning when she said she didn't have an opinion on whether the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Medina, who has literally come out of nowhere to quickly become a legitimate candidate in the Republican primary, first laughed when Beck said he had received emails from listeners saying she was a "9/11 truther."
"That's the first time I've heard of that accusation," she said, not exactly denying the charge.

*Government conspiracy?*

So Beck asked her straight up: "Do you believe the government was in any way involved in the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?"
Easy answer, right? Nope.
"I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard," Medina replied. "There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that."
That answer caused a stir in the studio. Beck quickly followed up by asking her if she would disavow any of her staff if they were "9/11 truthers." 

"Well, you know, that's a federal issue. We're very focused on issues in Texas, on Texas state government," she said. "I'm certainly not into mind control or thought policing people. "We've got a very diverse team in this state and that's because Texans are standing shoulder to shoulder to support and defend the Constitution. I frankly don't have time, you know, to go through and do psychological testing on people and know every thought or detail that they have." 

*Buh-bye*

After that, Beck politely thanked Medina for appearing on his program and dismissed her future political hopes.
"I think I can write her off the list," he said. "Let me take another look at [candidate] Kay Bailey Hutchison, if I have to." 
"Rick, I think you and I could French kiss right now," he said of Texas's current governor, Rick Perry who is running for re-election.
"Wow," Beck continued. "Wow. The fastest way back to four percent," he said of Medina's one-time standing in the polls. A recent survey showed her only four points behind Hutchison with 24 percent of the vote.

*What I meant to say was...*

Medina quickly put out a statement clarifying what she meant, which just so happens not to sound anything like what she said.
"I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones."

*So, how was I?*

How'd the response go over in Texas? Well, if the opinion of Dallas Morning News blogger Colleen McCain Nelson is any indication, about as well as The Who performing at the Super Bowl.
"...To me, this sounds like an effective way to put your campaign on the fast track back to the fringe," Nelson writes.

[youtube]8j2Ov6u9e38&[/youtube]


----------



## Big P (Feb 17, 2010)

lol check this video out lol



[youtube]ngpsJKQR_ZE&[/youtube]


----------



## matthew (Feb 17, 2010)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, the issue basically has traction only with the left.
> 
> The entire truther conspiracy is politically driven.... pay attention son.
> 
> ...



Like Debra Medina, the Tea party candidate for Texas governor. She did and exclusive with Alex Jones.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 17, 2010)

Told ya ... all the peanut gallery could do is post stupid pictures and make stupid comments ... it like taking the material from the video I posted and using the bullshit verbatim ... it like their brain stops functioning if they harbor an independent thought ... we don't even have to read their stupid comments ... just watch the video and you will have any and all comment they can parrot!kiss-assThey are stupid enough to believe skyscrapers design to withstand a plane impact and fire can come crashing straight down in seconds ... and they believe WE are the crazy ones ... too funny!

Now on to the 911 News for today ... 
I found something very interesting ... it seems the government have been using remote control aircraft for quite some time ... check it out ...

Operation Aphrodite
Operation Aphrodite' was the World War II code name of a secret USAAF program that began in 1944. Pilotless aircraft packed with explosives were remotely controlled into their targets.
[youtube]zTWZjbie-dI[/youtube]


http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/03/21/2009-03-21_world_trade_center_developer_larry_silve.html#ixzz0fi43SbKEWorld Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein wants own bailout
Silverstein is requesting cash for at least two of the three planned office towers, sources told the paper.
Anxious to see the project completed, the Port Authority is considering stepping in, but not without concessions, The Journal said.
Silverstein has less than $1 billion left from the $4.5 billion insurance settlement he got after the 2001 terror attacks, The Journal said.
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
And he'll probably get it because he can blow the whistle on what really happened on 9-11.


The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. 
Eight countries  Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia  have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.
This more open approach taken in the international media  I could also have included the Japanese media  might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks  a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.


*Observations on the Analysis*

While carrying out my analysis, I observed five new features in the media treatment of the 9/11 issue that developed as 2009 progressed. They are listed here, so that readers might look for them in the case studies that follow below:1. The 9/11 issue is increasingly framed not as conspiracy theories versus hard science, but as a legitimate controversy resting on unanswered questions and a search for truth. 

2. News reports and television programs examining these controversies have become longer and more balanced.

3. Major media outlets have begun to present the claims of the truth movement first, followed by counter-arguments from defenders of the official story.

4. Major media outlets have begun to include, and even to introduce, extensive evidence to support the claims of the 9/11 truth community.

5. The media treatments increasingly suggest the possibility of a re-investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.​ The first part of this essay deals with the crucial scientific evidence that emerged in early 2009, the significance of this evidence in relation to the official story of 9/11, and the immediate news coverage it received.


*II. Scientific Paper Finds Nano-thermite Explosives in World Trade Center Dust, April 3, 2009*

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust. 

These physicists and chemists involved in this study discovered "distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers"3 in four samples of dust collected from the area. The presence of aluminum and iron oxide in the red material provided one of the signs that it might be nano-thermite, which is a high explosive (whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary.)

Another clue was provided when putting a flame to the chips produced an explosive reaction.

http://dprogram.net/2010/02/15/video-glennbeck-what-are-the-dangers-of-911-truthers/Video: @GlennBeck What Are the Dangers of 9/11 Truthers?
 Its enough to get me wondering if these truthers are a National Security Threat or what hideous crimes they may have committed against the U.S. of America.
Glenn, you seem pretty on top of this, besides thought crimes, what are the crimes or threats posed by 9/11 truthers to the country or yourself?
Its a good question huh, Glenn?
*Webmaster's Commentary: *
I notice that the corporate media, as typified by Beck, always place the blame for the controversy on those who seek the truth. It never seems to occur to them to wonder if maybe the perpetrators were rather stupid to try to try a false-flag deception like this in the age of the internet, then dump the propaganda mess on them to clean up!










...and that's the 911 news for today folks ...good night and good news!


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 17, 2010)

So much for No Drama being able to see the trees through the woods.... 

You mean it's politically motivated?????!!!!????

Yes, my little country lamb.......


GR .... ur padded cell is ready. Reality check.


----------



## Keenly (Feb 17, 2010)

> Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
> 
> Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion
> 
> ...



i cant wait to see what you guys have to say


and no, you cant simply ignore it based on the sole fact alex jones is mentioned


NYT/CBS poll


oh, and FWIW, sarah palin supports a new investigation


but i dont think very highly of that source


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 17, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Told ya ... all the peanut gallery could do is post stupid pictures and make stupid comments ... it like taking the material from the video I posted and using the bullshit verbatim ... it like their brain stops functioning if they harbor an *independent thought* ... we don't even have to read their stupid comments ... just watch the video and you will have any and all comment they can parrot!.......


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2010)

Keenly said:


> i cant wait to see what you guys have to say
> 
> 
> and no, you cant simply ignore it based on the sole fact alex jones is mentioned
> ...


Thanks for posting this keenly ... can you give me a link to it? .... it will be a long wait for an answer from the peanut gallery ... the facts always showed they are the minority ... but they will continue to ignore that cold hard fact ... and as far as what they will say to your post .. just check out the video I posted ... all their stupid responses are in the video ...
How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
[youtube]kG4yGICFsi8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

They can't help themselves ... they continue to demonstrate nothing but knee-jerk responses they get from their play book and video. fdd and cj already proved it ... 
Thanks to our efforts ...we are preventing another false flag attack by the elite ... Alex Jones is saying they are planning another false flag attack to kill Obama ... check it out ...

Alex Jones Tv 1/6: Obama is The Next False Flag!!!

Part 2 of 6

Part 3 of 6

Part 4 of 6

Part 5 of 6

Part 6 of 6

check this report out folks ...
Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror 
 Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.
This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of the false flag terror.
For example:


The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president


Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
More evidence that the peanut gallery can't handle the facts. But I'm not telling anyone anything new. More 911 News ...
The Israeli Moles Who Controlled U.S. Defense Computers on 9/11
I followed that response with a question about the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Menachem Atzmon, the man who oversaw passenger screening and airport security at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11, as owner of ICTS, the parent company of Huntleigh USA.
Mr. Chamish seemed quite surprised that I knew of this relationship and said that if, indeed, Atzmon was responsible for security at Boston's airport on 9/11, then it was worthy of being followed up, because Olmert and Atzmon are truly very close political allies and co-defendants in old Likud crimes:
No duh, see "Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11".
But there is much, much more to this Israeli crime...


Photographic Evidence Showing Ziad Jarrah Was Not a 9/11 Hijacker

Of all the dozens of mysteries still swirling around this month's devastating terrorist attacks, the life of alleged hijacker [Ziad] Jarrah has emerged as one of the more perplexing. From Lebanon to Germany to the United States, there are few clues as to why he would have joined a terrorist organization, much less commandeered an airplane in a suicidal mission that claimed dozens of innocent lives as well as his own.


9/11 - The Frame Up Of Abdulaziz Alomari

The Saudi Institute, an independent human rights watchdog group that has researched the hijackers' identities, said at least one of the hijackers named by the FBI used stolen identification. Abdulaziz Alomari was identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers of an American Airlines plane that was crashed into the World Trade Center. Ali Al-Ahmed, the Saudi Institute's director, said Alomari used someone else's passport.



Congressman Jason Chafetz just said that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11.
A real nutjob, right?(only to the members of the peanut gallery ... and that is of no consequence)

If so, he joins quite a few other Congressmen:


According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken _under orders from the White House_


Alex Jones - Sarah Palin 9/11 Truther controversy explodes 
Video 10minutes

Manufactured Controversy Backfires As Vast Majority Back Medina, Attack Glenn Beck
 The attack dog corporate media, in cahoots with loathsome phony neo-con crybaby Glenn Beck, are once again attempting to manufacture reality by smearing Debra Medina for expressing a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in an effort to purge her from the Texas gubernatorial race.
Fox News blowhard Glenn Beck attempted to set up Medina on his radio show yesterday by asking her if she believed the U.S. government was involved in 9/11.
I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, Medina said. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that.


And that's the 911 News Report ... good day ... and good news to you all


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2010)

Big P said:


> heres a truther who is running for office that glen beck just fucked now her poll numbers crashed and she was in the lead!!!
> 
> *Debra Medina self-destructs on Glenn Beck radio show*
> 
> *Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina appeared on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning and made a lot of news when she wouldn't take a position on whether the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.*


Remember this post from one of the members of the peanut gallery? Check this out folks ... another excellent example of the deniers hypocrisy and how they follow blindlykiss-ass ... if it's all right for the nutjob palin why is Medina being demonized ... this is a followup also for the Alex Jones video on palin ... 
Sarah Palin Supports A New 9/11 Investigation
[youtube]DPDbmQmV6O8[/youtube]
So tell us all you palin supporters who you wish you could fuck is a nutjob. Hypocrites.


----------



## Big P (Feb 18, 2010)

stop the hate growrebel











we already have too much of it


this kid reminds me of my son, his father died a hero



thier daddies are dieing while we are:


----------



## "SICC" (Feb 18, 2010)

GrowRebel said:


> Thanks for posting this keenly ... can you give me a link to it? .... it will be a long wait for an answer from the peanut gallery ... the facts always showed they are the minority ... but they will continue to ignore that cold hard fact ... and as far as what they will say to your post .. just check out the video I posted ... all their stupid responses are in the video ...
> How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
> [youtube]kG4yGICFsi8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]





lol so funny

keep the updates coming man, i dont even read what they say anymore.


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 18, 2010)

GR should work for Goodyear. He's the retread king of all time.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2010)

[QUOTE="SICC";3805675]lol so funny

keep the updates coming man, i dont even read what they say anymore.
[/QUOTE]

I know ... we don't need to read anything they post anymore ... the video says it all ... they just keep proving the video is right they just can't help it ... I love it when they prove me right ... too funny.

Here is a 911 update.

911 Press for Truth
This video is of the families of the 911 murder victims pressing for a real investigation into the false flag attack.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2010)

This is the link to the timeline discussed in the 20 minute video I just posted ... the video also pointed out how the government whitewashed the fake investigation.

Complete 911 Timeline
Lots and lots of details the government didn't bother to check.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2010)

There is more to the video I posted ... there doesn't appear to be a part 2 ... just part 3 and 4 ... can't find a part 2 ... 

911 Press for Truth Part3

911 Press For Truth Part 4 (final)

Each video is 20 minutes long.


----------



## Big P (Feb 18, 2010)

they are making an offensive!!!!!


ATTACK!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 18, 2010)

That's about how it comes across..... 

Nutty nuts nuts....


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2010)

God I love it when I'm proven right!


----------



## Big P (Feb 18, 2010)




----------



## Big P (Feb 18, 2010)

reality is passing you by,


its happening whether you like it or not



which is nice


----------



## CrackerJax (Feb 18, 2010)

That's a big affirmative...

GR is a great indicator that the conspiracy is all about HIM. HE feeds off of it. Can you imagine meeting him at a social event..... (I smile...listen politely then for 30 seconds and then make an excuse to go to the opposite side of the room)

An illness.


----------



## GrowRebel (Feb 18, 2010)

Now watch folks ... the peanut gallery knee jerk response and ignoring the FACTS like they did the Medina come back ... watch now ... 











































So much for the peanut gallery ... all too easy ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Feb 18, 2010)

you just crossed the line, buddy. 


closed


----------

