Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you really want to rely on a "source" where people collaborate on conspiracies?
Sorry, I can come back with many more credible sources.
This can all be verified.
Hi Creative with Jillian mentioned:
Everything I stated there is verifiable and indisputable...
None of these Official Govt Cover Story Stooges can accept my challenge:
Terral's Challenge To Official 9/11 Govt Conspiracy Theory Stooges
BTW, every post from Jillian is one to three sentences of stupidity supported by less than nothing ...
GL,
Terral
I like this thread...
I like this thread...
Really? I am guessing you're not going to like it for much longer. So have you told them of your traitorous and treasonous call for people to rise up against their government based on your lies and opinions instead of hard evidence? You would do well back in Salem Massachusetts back in the 1600s, but here in modern America, we require more than the blatherings of a known, proven liar to convict, much less kill anyone.
This is what you called for:I like this thread...
Really? I am guessing you're not going to like it for much longer. So have you told them of your traitorous and treasonous call for people to rise up against their government based on your lies and opinions instead of hard evidence? You would do well back in Salem Massachusetts back in the 1600s, but here in modern America, we require more than the blatherings of a known, proven liar to convict, much less kill anyone.
You are a true manipulator of words......I call for a peacefull revolution to vote in independents to help change our sneaky and secretive government who ignores the wishes of the majority of the American people who want a new and independent investigation into 9/11 and you twist it into something else...
creativedreams said:Maybe the huge percentage of American's who had serious questions about disturbing descrepancies and were robbed of a new and true investigation should just start a revolution to obtain a government that is not the most sneaky and secretive in the world?
So why can't you simply state some hard evidence? Come on. It can't be THAT hard can it? Oh wait. There IS no evidence. I see your point. Yes, it must be a true bitch to constantly be reminded you've got nothing but your whining and seriously lame O.J.'s attorney claims. Well, sucks to be you because I'm not going to stop.creativedreams said:As far as no evidence? People who read these forums can see right through people like you who are some type of defense attorney for the crooked...just like O.J. Simpsons attorney
The 9/11 commission report was not the investigation. It was AN investigation into why we failed to stop it. It relied heavily on the REAL investigation as to who was behind 9/11. Nice try, but as usual, epic failure.creativedreams said:As far as no evidence? Most of America knows that most of the very people involved in the 9/11 Commission Report....9/11 Omission Report even say we still don't know the truth about 9/11 and that they were stonewalled by the Whitehouse, top Military and top CIA....they say the 9/11 Commission Report was a complete whitewash....
Where is the evidence? People's OPINIONS are not evidence. They are OPINIONS.creativedreams said:Yet people like you who say there is no evidence for a new investigation....Mr. O.J. Simpsons attorney....
as soon as i heard the voice of the narrator i knew this was a stupid video.Is that you on the audio, eots? It wouldn't surprise me.
This is what you called for:Really? I am guessing you're not going to like it for much longer. So have you told them of your traitorous and treasonous call for people to rise up against their government based on your lies and opinions instead of hard evidence? You would do well back in Salem Massachusetts back in the 1600s, but here in modern America, we require more than the blatherings of a known, proven liar to convict, much less kill anyone.
You are a true manipulator of words......I call for a peacefull revolution to vote in independents to help change our sneaky and secretive government who ignores the wishes of the majority of the American people who want a new and independent investigation into 9/11 and you twist it into something else...
No claims of peace. No claims of voting people in. Revolution. Your own words.
a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>
Revolution - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
So why can't you simply state some hard evidence? Come on. It can't be THAT hard can it? Oh wait. There IS no evidence. I see your point. Yes, it must be a true bitch to constantly be reminded you've got nothing but your whining and seriously lame O.J.'s attorney claims. Well, sucks to be you because I'm not going to stop.
WHAT HARD EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE OF BIN LADENS INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 ?WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE BUILDING CAN EXPERIENCE A GLOBAL COLLAPSE ?
Truthtards claim buildings were brought down with explosives. Great. Show us a blasting cap or any other piece of evidence of a controlled demolition. Your OPINION that there must have been a controlled demolition doesn't cut it.
show me the forensic evidence of temperatures necessary for failure exsisted
Wow! You can use a dictionary! Want to point out a revolution where the government just stepped down because a bunch of disgruntled, delusional asses claimed something they had no evidence for?a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>
I have none. I do have several confessions. I also have tons of hard evidence against Al Qaeda. Are you another one of those assholes that can't differentiate between bin Laden and Al Qaeda?WHAT HARD EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE OF BIN LADENS INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 ?
Lots. Three of them did it on 9/11. Computer models show it is not only possible, but in some designs inevitable.WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE A STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE BUILDING CAN EXPERIENCE A GLOBAL COLLAPSE ?
Most, if not all, office fires reach temperatures necessary for failure to happen. Many "normal" office fires have reached temperatures of 1400F, well above the failure point of steel. If failure in a fire couldn't happen, they wouldn't take precautions like fire retardant on the steel. They would just leave the steel as it is. Most steel fire retardant is rated for 2, 3, or 4 hours. On 9/11, the fire retardant was knocked off by the planes in the towers. WTC 7 burned uncontested for over five hours.Truthtards claim buildings were brought down with explosives. Great. Show us a blasting cap or any other piece of evidence of a controlled demolition. Your OPINION that there must have been a controlled demolition doesn't cut it.
show me the forensic evidence of temperatures necessary for failure exsisted
another disinfo agent that has penetrated this site.
Man, the truthtards on this site are dumb as shit!
a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>Wow! You can use a dictionary!
yes are you jealous ?
WHAT HARD EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE OF BIN LADENS INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 ?
I have none.
Lots. Three of them did it on 9/11. Computer models show it is not only possible, but in some designs inevitable
NIST said no such thing and computer models are not evidence they are theories
Truthtards claim buildings were brought down with explosives. Great. Show us a blasting cap or any other piece of evidence of a controlled demolition. Your OPINION that there must have been a controlled demolition doesn't cut it
NIST ALREADY COINCIDED THAT A SINGLE BLAST TO A SINGLE COLUMN COULD OF INITIATED THE COLLAPSE AND I POSTED THE PROOF...UNLIKE YOU
s.Most, if not all, office fires reach temperatures necessary for failure to happen. Many "normal" office fires have reached temperatures of 1400F, well above the failure point of steel. If failure in a fire couldn't happen, they wouldn't take precautions like fire retardant on the steel. They would just leave the steel as it is. Most steel fire retardant is rated for 2, 3, or 4 hours. On 9/11, the fire retardant was knocked off by the planes in the towers. WTC 7 burned uncontested for over five hour
Want to provide any proof of your assertions ?
Of you?yes are you jealous ?
That's a laugh. Why would I want to drop 100 IQ points and lose my balls, my honor, my integrity and be forced to live in your mama's basement?Wow. You still don't get it. You're dumber than I thought and I didn't give you much credit to begin with. There is no hard evidence I know of that specifically links bin Laden. However, it is AL QAEDA that was behind 9/11. Bin Laden is the leader. There is literally tons of evidence that has stood up in a court of law that proves Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. As for other evidence, we have several confessions. Strange that you fucktards can't even accept multiple confessions as evidence.eots said:WHAT HARD EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE OF BIN LADENS INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 ?
God it must suck to be as stupid as a truthtard!NIST didn't say they collapsed from the fires? Wow. News to me. Maybe you were reading the wrong reports. As for steel framed structures failing due to heat, look up the Dresden fires. LOTS of steel framed structures failed purely because of heat.eots said:NIST said no such thing and computer models are not evidence they are theories
I must have missed that proof, and since you are a lying truthtard, I'm not about to take your word for it.eots said:NIST ALREADY COINCIDED THAT A SINGLE BLAST TO A SINGLE COLUMN COULD OF INITIATED THE COLLAPSE AND I POSTED THE PROOF...UNLIKE YOU
Why? You would just ignore it like you do everything else. You truthtards are nothing if not predictable.eots said:Most, if not all, office fires reach temperatures necessary for failure to happen. Many "normal" office fires have reached temperatures of 1400F, well above the failure point of steel. If failure in a fire couldn't happen, they wouldn't take precautions like fire retardant on the steel. They would just leave the steel as it is. Most steel fire retardant is rated for 2, 3, or 4 hours. On 9/11, the fire retardant was knocked off by the planes in the towers. WTC 7 burned uncontested for over five hours.
Want to provide any proof of your assertions ?
collapsed ???..that building stands and it burned fully engaged for days and never experienced a global collapse and is consistent in what on would expect from a building fire as are theseOf you?yes are you jealous ?
Wow. You still don't get it. You're dumber than I thought and I didn't give you much credit to begin with. There is no hard evidence I know of that specifically links bin Laden. However, it is AL QAEDA that was behind 9/11. Bin Laden is the leader. There is literally tons of evidence that has stood up in a court of law that proves Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. As for other evidence, we have several confessions. Strange that you fucktards can't even accept multiple confessions as evidence.eots said:WHAT HARD EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE OF BIN LADENS INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 ?
NIST didn't say they collapsed from the fires? Wow. News to me. Maybe you were reading the wrong reports. As for steel framed structures failing due to heat, look up the Dresden fires. LOTS of steel framed structures failed purely because of heat.
I must have missed that proof, and since you are a lying truthtard, I'm not about to take your word for it.
Why? You would just ignore it like you do everything else. You truthtards are nothing if not predictable.eots said:Most, if not all, office fires reach temperatures necessary for failure to happen. Many "normal" office fires have reached temperatures of 1400F, well above the failure point of steel. If failure in a fire couldn't happen, they wouldn't take precautions like fire retardant on the steel. They would just leave the steel as it is. Most steel fire retardant is rated for 2, 3, or 4 hours. On 9/11, the fire retardant was knocked off by the planes in the towers. WTC 7 burned uncontested for over five hours.
Want to provide any proof of your assertions ?
But what the hell. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to show everyone else how dishonest and detestable you are.
Windsor fire:
There were no reported injuries except for three firefighters who suffered smoke inhalation and exhaustion. At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday.
Of course, as might be expected, the steel framed portion of the building collapsed. Gee.... who woulda thunk it?
As for fire ratings, here is the NYC code for buildings.
. LOTS of steel framed structures failed purely because of heat.
I must have missed that proof, and since you are a lying truthtard, I'm not about to take your word for it.
Why? You would just ignore it like you do everything else. You truthtards
What a typical truthtard. I answer every one of his questions and all he comes back with is "the building is still standing". :roll:collapsed ???..that building stands and it burned fully engaged for days and never experienced a global collapse and is consistent in what on would expect from a building fire as are these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8
I mean, I know truthtards are mentally challenged, but the quality of morons on this board is truly mind boggling!Where did I say the steel framed structures were higher than 15 feet? So are you claiming that ONLY structures higher than 15 feet are incapable of collapse due to fire?So you disagree with NIST contention this was the first steel framed building higher the 15 stories to ever collapse due to fire ?. LOTS of steel framed structures failed purely because of heat.
I have. Like a true blue truthtard, you ignored it.eots said:Want to provide any proof of your assertions ?I must have missed that proof, and since you are a lying truthtard, I'm not about to take your word for it.
eots said:I provide them and prove you incorrect constantlyWhy? You would just ignore it like you do everything else. You truthtards
Who do you think you are kidding? You completely IGNORED my evidence in true truthtard fashion. Pieces of shit like you can rarely address real evidence.Um..... WTF are you talking about? It is always hard debating mentally challenged truthtards.eots said:and I will do it again...A
SINGLE BUCKLED COLUMN...#...79...BUT THERE WAS NO SOUND "AS LOUD AS A SHOT GUN BLAST"...SO IT WAS NOT INVESTIGATED
. LOTS of steel framed structures failed purely because of heat.
So you disagree with NIST contention this was the first steel framed building higher the 15 stories to ever collapse due to fire ?
Where did I say the steel framed structures were higher than 15 feet? So are you claiming that ONLY structures higher than 15 feet are incapable of collapse due to fire?
the opening statemnt of the NIST wtc 7 report says that wtc 7 was the first steel framed building over 15 stories to ever collapse due to fire...but you like to pretend buildings still standing have actually collapsed
SINGLE BUCKLED COLUMN...#...79...BUT THERE WAS NO SOUND "AS LOUD AS A SHOT GUN BLAST"...SO IT WAS NOT INVESTIGATED
Um..... WTF are you talking about? It is always hard debating mentally challenged truthtards.
listen to the NIST wtc7 final briefing ..nipplehead !!
Are you saying the buckling of the column would be as loud as a shotgun blast? Why would that warrant investigation? Structures failing usually make a lot of noise.
no you simpleton I am quoting NIST in its final briefing on wtc 7
where they stae the amount of explosives required to take out column 79 would haqve been as loud as a shot gun blast and no such sound was recorded or reported..so once again we have a debwunker that is in contradiction with the theory he claims to support
If you're claiming a controlled demolitions blast is as loud as a shotgun blast, then I can only conclude you've never heard a shotgun blast or high explosives cooking off. Not even in the same league. I can shoot shotguns without hearing protection with ease. I've been half a mile from a controlled demolition and it was about as loud.
it is a direct quote from the NIST videos I posted three times now !!
simple Simon !...NIST says the minimum amount of explosives required to take out column 79 and initiate collapse would of been as "loud as a shot gun blast or speaker at a rock concert"
:So what has eots proven? That he has no clue how loud anything is. :lol
so whats parrot 9/11 proven he has never read the final wtc7 report he claims to support and presents "evidence and facts" in contradiction with the findings of NIST
You know, I've seen DIRT smarter than you. Are you seriously so retarded you can't understand simple English? I am not disagreeing with the NIST report. I am saying structures UNDER fifteen stories have collapse purely due to fire. It is HARDER for a smaller structure to collapse than a larger structure because of the weights involved.the opening statemnt of the NIST wtc 7 report says that wtc 7 was the first steel framed building over 15 stories to ever collapse due to fire...but you like to pretend buildings still standing have actually collapsed
And like all truthtards, you leave out the critical facts. Explosives A HALF MILE AWAY would make the same sound as a shotgun blast shot right next to you. Did we hear that on any of the audio tapes? No. Not even close. Not even in the fake ones I've seen truthtards try and pass off.eots said:no you simpleton I am quoting NIST in its final briefing on wtc 7
where they stae the amount of explosives required to take out column 79 would haqve been as loud as a shot gun blast and no such sound was recorded or reported..so once again we have a debwunker that is in contradiction with the theory he claims to support
And once again you leave out critical words that make your entire claim stand out as retarded. Why can't you add the part about half mile away in an urban setting? I've heard a controlled demolition from about half a mile away. It was LOUD. There was no mistaking the explosives going off. Do we hear that on any of the audio tapes? No. Not even from the ones that were so close to the collapse the people had to run. Now, it seems to me if someone were standing next to a microphone and fired a shotgun, one would be able to hear it. Same with the explosives from half mile away. Yet we heard NOTHING but the collapse.eots said:it is a direct quote from the NIST videos I posted three times now !!
simple Simon !...NIST says the minimum amount of explosives required to take out column 79 and initiate collapse would of been as "loud as a shot gun blast or speaker at a rock concert"
Wrong yet again, oh liar of liars. It is YOU who consistantly outright lies about what the NIST said. You pretend the blast at the point of origin would be as loud as a shotgun blast. That isn't what was said. Not even close. So you're a liar and incredibly dishonest. No shock there.eots said:So what has eots proven? That he has no clue how loud anything is.
so whats parrot 9/11 proven he has never read the final wtc7 report he claims to support and presents "evidence and facts" in contradiction with the findings of NIST
