It's All Over!!!

[georgephillip]

NIST has acknowledged 2.25 seconds of free fall during WTC7's apparent controlled demolition.
According to AE911 accounts, 400 structural steel connections per second would've been required to fail uniformly across all 8 floors for free fall to occur. Eventually, a generation of Americans will take a hard look at the evidence, and they're likely to conclude many of us who were adults when 911 happened, happen to be too cowardly to demand a full investigation.

 

[Mr. Jones]

My take is that all CTs have an irresistible need to feel superior to the rest of us and some even need to feel superior to other CTs. Sort of a smartest of the smartest in their own little minds.

I see you're feeling a bit insecure, as can be expected as you seem to know nothing about this topic and resort to little fits and childish smear tactics.

Childish smear tactics? Evidently I hit a nerve and I'll tell you what I do know: All CTs invariably need psuedoscience, half-truths and outright lies to support your fantasies.

So humorous but sad at the same time, to witness such insecurity and total failure on your part when you have nothing to offer to the discussion at hand. You could try to read up and familiarize yourself with the topic but you obviously find it is beyond your level of comprehension poobutt.

Indeed I "read up" pretty much everytime one of you loons dumps another load of CT crap here and each time your "proof" has been readily and easily debunked. It is you who never questions the BS that oozes from your seedy CT World.

Your screed is so scattershot and paranoia-laden I was forced to cherry pick what I believe to be at the core of all CTs. You think you are smarter and more focused than anyone who does not share your insipid beliefs and all who ridicule them must be agents of Big Bro. Here's a clue for you, Princess:
Get out of your Mom's basement and get a life.

Insipid is what can described what you consider a response to most posters who have a different opinion about 9-11 then yours. There are quite a few people on here that are indeed smarter and more focused on this topic then you, and a quick glance at what you post will confirm this.

Yes there are peeps here who are smarter than me, Princess (present company excluded) but there is something very wrong about adults who scour the fetid bowels of the WWW to find all manner of insipid CTs which they accept as truth without question. Ironically, The Skeptics Society would be a leading voice in the CT World if your BS had validity. Unfortunately for you 9/11 "truthers," they seem to find the CT Worlds "facts" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism.

While there is proof that there are people that can be considered "agents" put in place to use various means to ridicule those that do not believe the OCT narrative, it doesn't take an employee working in a call center type environment pretending to be a regular Joe on message boards and comments sections, there are many who are just plain usefull idiots that do not think for themselves out of cowardice. This better describes you, as you aren't versed enough in what you try to participate in to be considered an adequate "agent", unless your specific job duty only entails posting insipid, childish rants and ad hominem.
In your response above, you once again do not provide anything interesting that solidifies your belief about the topic.
You instead resort to the same ole BS of saying we are paranoid CTers, living in someones basement, while replying with nothing that defends your positions.
You are only here to ridicule, distract or inflame and doing a shamefully poor job in the process.

While I have certainly had relatively rational disagreements with the few relatively rational CTs here, I have found the die hards like you to be so lacking in reason and factual knowledge as to render adult conversation impossible. I admit I do not suffer fools well and while I have great patience with children I have little for adults who act like children. Grow up and get out of your Mommy's basement, Princess. Get a life.

First, you should learn to use the quote function properly, your laziness is apparent.
You mention pseudoscience, and that is exactly what the claim is against the NIST regarding their explanation for the destruction of the WTC.

You mentioned the NIST report, and again NIST is the focal point and their report is the problem.
You adhere to a narrative that is incomplete, a hypothesis that failed to include all the data to be considered viable, and has many instances of the pseudoscience you wrongly claim the credible counter hypothesis to the NIST report has.

You falsely state the counter hypothesis to the NIST report have been shot down, but always fail to even provide one instance of this, or provide even the slightest bit of documentation yourself. You simply say, or allude the NIST report has all the answers, or that someone else has already provided answers to the questions, or that soundly reject
the proof that NIST may be wrong.

Would you like me to provide some of the information and reasons why I and some others think the NIST report is itself based on pseudoscience? It's not that difficult to understand, if you put all the BS and banter being exchanged here to the side, I'll be glad to elaborate and explain in hope that you will reciprocate and perhaps engage in a rational discussion.
In other words lets' cut the BS and see if this can turn into a rational discussion, put up or shut up?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Ya got me, Princess. I'm an Israeli disinformation agent trying to keep really smart peeps like you from figuring out what really happened on 9/11.

No you're entirely too stupid to be that. That's readily obvious. It's also obvious how you ignore the questions he asked you, and you respond with the quick lame reply.
You MO is to run away from confrontation like an insecure little child.

His "questions" have been reliably answered in dozens of current posts here, by the NIST report, and by dozens of credible sources. You might want to "read up" on the subject.
He wasn't asking sincere questions about 9/11, he was trying to turn this into another USS Liberty debate, a subject he and I have exhausted where it belongs ... on the Israel/Palestine board.

There are valid reasons to think there is a connection to Israel regarding the 9-11 attacks.
But let us first start at the beginning with the destruction of the WTC buildings, after all, that is where the basis for the objections start in the first place.

 

[SAYIT]

No you're entirely too stupid to be that. That's readily obvious. It's also obvious how you ignore the questions he asked you, and you respond with the quick lame reply.
You MO is to run away from confrontation like an insecure little child.

His "questions" have been reliably answered in dozens of current posts here, by the NIST report, and by dozens of credible sources. You might want to "read up" on the subject.
He wasn't asking sincere questions about 9/11, he was trying to turn this into another USS Liberty debate, a subject he and I have exhausted where it belongs ... on the Israel/Palestine board.

There are valid reasons to think there is a connection to Israel regarding the 9-11 attacks.
But let us first start at the beginning with the destruction of the WTC buildings, after all, that is where the basis for the objections start in the first place.

We can always go back to a subject which has been done to death here ... the destruction of the TTs. This is the first time I've encountered someone here who wanted to blame Israel (Nazi boards have done that to death). So how 'bout we start with that "connection to Israel" to which you referred.

 

[Mr. Jones]

His "questions" have been reliably answered in dozens of current posts here, by the NIST report, and by dozens of credible sources. You might want to "read up" on the subject.
He wasn't asking sincere questions about 9/11, he was trying to turn this into another USS Liberty debate, a subject he and I have exhausted where it belongs ... on the Israel/Palestine board.

There are valid reasons to think there is a connection to Israel regarding the 9-11 attacks.
But let us first start at the beginning with the destruction of the WTC buildings, after all, that is where the basis for the objections start in the first place.

We can always go back to a subject which has been done to death here ... the destruction of the TTs. This is the first time I've encountered someone here who wanted to blame Israel (Nazi boards have done that to death). So how 'bout we start with that "connection to Israel" to which you referred.

The only thing done to death as you say, is the avoidance and side tracking of the issue.
If the WTC's had come down in a manner conducive to fire and damage, no objections would have been made and Israel wouldn't have been talked about.
You seem to have an issue with the first, and main objections to the official explanation, that being how the WTC was destroyed.
That was the first thing that was readily noticeable, and many people were stunned by the quick 'collapses" even the news anchors covering the event.
To leave this first part out is a wrong way to debate it.
I have read the objections that come from people in the fields of science and physics, and they make sense.
I have also worked with metal and cutting torches and welders and know from experience that steel does not turn into noodles unless it is exposed to very high temps. I also know that the fires did not reach those temps at the WTC, and were not able to be at the load points, for the duration required to initiate what for the most part, were symmetrical collapses.
A steel skyscraper being destroyed by fire is an unprecedented event in history, but 3 massive steel buildings being felled by fire should not be ignored.
Asymmetrical damage causing symmetrical collapses on 3 buildings in the same day is certainly a reason to question just exactly how the results came about.

Something else had to assist the fires started by kerosene. A high temp source was most likely used.The lower part of the structures were not exposed to heat or damage from the planes or fuel. The damaged upper parts were constructed of thinner steel material then the lower, and would have experienced a resistance from the lower parts, thereby slowing down the collapse front to produce much slower decent times then was observed.

We also have videos of explosions way below the collapse fronts, that could not possibly be forced air because of the vast distances away from it.
The fires also lasted much less time wise then other buildings that experienced more severe fires, and that did not globally collapse.
This is the biggest red flag if you will, and what started to put doubt in many observant peoples minds.

 

[georgephillip]

What's the connection?

Very few Americans (US Citizens) can wrap their minds around the Evil required for any US Administration to collaborate in the cold blooded murder of 3000 citizens. Very few Americans have any knowledge of Israel's cold blooded murder of 34 US service members in June of 1967. Eyewitness survivors to Israel's deliberate attack on that fateful day 46 years ago are dwindling to a precious few; their testimony could influence millions of fellow Americans to reconsider their government's capacity for Evil. (Before Dick, Dubya, and Rummy, et.al, die)

 

[SAYIT]

There are valid reasons to think there is a connection to Israel regarding the 9-11 attacks.
But let us first start at the beginning with the destruction of the WTC buildings, after all, that is where the basis for the objections start in the first place.

We can always go back to a subject which has been done to death here ... the destruction of the TTs. This is the first time I've encountered someone here who wanted to blame Israel (Nazi boards have done that to death). So how 'bout we start with that "connection to Israel" to which you referred.

The only thing done to death as you say, is the avoidance and side tracking of the issue.

That must be your way of saying you don't like posters who factually refute your CT silliness.

If the WTC's had come down in a manner conducive to fire and damage, no objections would have been made and Israel wouldn't have been talked about. You seem to have an issue with the first, and main objections to the official explanation, that being how the WTC was destroyed.

You can whine as much and as often as you like, Princess, but the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers all disagree with your opinion.

That was the first thing that was readily noticeable, and many people were stunned by the quick 'collapses" even the news anchors covering the event.

Ah... now there's "irrefutable" proof of a conspiracy for ya! I don't know how you do it!

To leave this first part out is a wrong way to debate it.
I have read the objections that come from people in the fields of science and physics, and they make sense.

I have read the methodology and conclusions of those charged with sorting out what happened on 9/11 as well as independent work from UC Berkeley, Northwestern U., MIT, and Cesar Pelli, all of whom disagree with your opinion.

I have also worked with metal and cutting torches and welders and know from experience that steel does not turn into noodles unless it is exposed to very high temps. I also know that the fires did not reach those temps at the WTC, and were not able to be at the load points, for the duration required to initiate what for the most part, were symmetrical collapses.

You seem to know only that which you choose to know. The metal did not melt but was sufficiently weakened and distorted by the fires to cause the collapse, which it did.

A steel skyscraper being destroyed by fire is an unprecedented event in history, but 3 massive steel buildings being felled by fire should not be ignored.
Asymmetrical damage causing symmetrical collapses on 3 buildings in the same day is certainly a reason to question just exactly how the results came about.

One could hardly call the causes of the collapses "ignored" but I choose to accept the rational, logical, factual findings of the agencies, institutions and individuals already named as opposed to your "personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder."

Something else had to assist the fires started by kerosene. A high temp source was most likely used.The lower part of the structures were not exposed to heat or damage from the planes or fuel. The damaged upper parts were constructed of thinner steel material then the lower, and would have experienced a resistance from the lower parts, thereby slowing down the collapse front to produce much slower decent times then was observed.

Gee, Princess, do you suppose thousands of gallons of jet fuel had any effect?

We also have videos of explosions way below the collapse fronts, that could not possibly be forced air because of the vast distances away from it.
The fires also lasted much less time wise then other buildings that experienced more severe fires, and that did not globally collapse.
This is the biggest red flag if you will, and what started to put doubt in many observant peoples minds.

Of course, there's not a lick of hard evidence that the buildings were rigged or that anyone actively participated in the destruction at the WTC other than those who flew those jets into towers 1 & 2, but thanks for playing.

 

[SAYIT]

What's the connection?

Very few Americans (US Citizens) can wrap their minds around the Evil required for any US Administration to collaborate in the cold blooded murder of 3000 citizens. Very few Americans have any knowledge of Israel's cold blooded murder of 34 US service members in June of 1967. Eyewitness survivors to Israel's deliberate attack are dwindling to a precious few; they're testimony could influence millions of fellow Americans to reconsider their government's capacity for Evil. (Before Dick, Dubya, and Rummy, et.al, die)

So tell me, Princess ... how does a now 46 year old friendly fire incident in the fog of war prove Israel perpetrated 9/11? This should be good.

 

[Mr. Jones]

We can always go back to a subject which has been done to death here ... the destruction of the TTs. This is the first time I've encountered someone here who wanted to blame Israel (Nazi boards have done that to death). So how 'bout we start with that "connection to Israel" to which you referred.

The only thing done to death as you say, is the avoidance and side tracking of the issue.

That must be your way of saying you don't like posters who factually refute your CT silliness.

If the WTC's had come down in a manner conducive to fire and damage, no objections would have been made and Israel wouldn't have been talked about. You seem to have an issue with the first, and main objections to the official explanation, that being how the WTC was destroyed.

You can whine as much and as often as you like, Princess, but the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers all disagree with your opinion.

That was the first thing that was readily noticeable, and many people were stunned by the quick 'collapses" even the news anchors covering the event.

Ah... now there's "irrefutable" proof of a conspiracy for ya! I don't know how you do it!

To leave this first part out is a wrong way to debate it.
I have read the objections that come from people in the fields of science and physics, and they make sense.

I have read the methodology and conclusions of those charged with sorting out what happened on 9/11 as well as independent work from UC Berkeley, Northwestern U., MIT, and Cesar Pelli, all of whom disagree with your opinion.

I have also worked with metal and cutting torches and welders and know from experience that steel does not turn into noodles unless it is exposed to very high temps. I also know that the fires did not reach those temps at the WTC, and were not able to be at the load points, for the duration required to initiate what for the most part, were symmetrical collapses.

You seem to know only that which you choose to know. The metal did not melt but was sufficiently weakened and distorted by the fires to cause the collapse, which it did.

A steel skyscraper being destroyed by fire is an unprecedented event in history, but 3 massive steel buildings being felled by fire should not be ignored.
Asymmetrical damage causing symmetrical collapses on 3 buildings in the same day is certainly a reason to question just exactly how the results came about.

One could hardly call the causes of the collapses "ignored" but I choose to accept the rational, logical, factual findings of the agencies, institutions and individuals already named as opposed to your "personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder."

Something else had to assist the fires started by kerosene. A high temp source was most likely used.The lower part of the structures were not exposed to heat or damage from the planes or fuel. The damaged upper parts were constructed of thinner steel material then the lower, and would have experienced a resistance from the lower parts, thereby slowing down the collapse front to produce much slower decent times then was observed.

Gee, Princess, do you suppose thousands of gallons of jet fuel had any effect?

We also have videos of explosions way below the collapse fronts, that could not possibly be forced air because of the vast distances away from it.
The fires also lasted much less time wise then other buildings that experienced more severe fires, and that did not globally collapse.
This is the biggest red flag if you will, and what started to put doubt in many observant peoples minds.

Of course, there's not a lick of hard evidence that the buildings were rigged or that anyone actively participated in the destruction at the WTC other than those who flew those jets into towers 1 & 2, but thanks for playing.

You ignoring the opposition is no way to debate the topic.
Fuel loads were even admitted by NIST to be minimal as the majority of the kerosene was consumed upon impact and witnessed by the fireballs of the explosions. See what you are also purposefully ignoring is that many sources that you throw about, have no factual basis for a solid hypothesis, and are dependent on government funding for projects and studies, and like the NIST, do not explain how the massive buildings of which close to 80-90% were not effected, were overcome by parts that weighed significantly less, and parts of which did not contribute to the collapses fronts.
Those massive structures could not physically come down, 3 times in one day, in the short amount of time that they did. Time to get that through your head poobut.

 

[Toro]

Things conspiracy theorists have little understanding about;

- context
- complexity
- probability
- randomness

That's why they are so gullible and believe pretty much any stupid theory that comes down the pike.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Things conspiracy theorists have little understanding about;

- context
- complexity
- probability
- randomness

That's why they are so gullible and believe pretty much any stupid theory that comes down the pike.

Use those on yourself, because if you subscribe to the NIST theory of collapse they apply to you as well, but you don't take them into consideration, and instead adhere to believing in highly improbable coincidences. BTW physics and science are not a CT, and to not consider these scientific laws and values, makes you the conspiracy theorist you rail against.

 

[Toro]

Things conspiracy theorists have little understanding about;

- context
- complexity
- probability
- randomness

That's why they are so gullible and believe pretty much any stupid theory that comes down the pike.

Use those on yourself, because if you subscribe to the NIST theory of collapse they apply to you as well, but you don't take them into consideration, and instead adhere to believing in highly improbable coincidences. BTW physics and science are not a CT, and to not consider these scientific laws and values, makes you the conspiracy theorist you rail against.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

"Pull!"

 

[SAYIT]

The only thing done to death as you say, is the avoidance and side tracking of the issue.

That must be your way of saying you don't like posters who factually refute your CT silliness.

If the WTC's had come down in a manner conducive to fire and damage, no objections would have been made and Israel wouldn't have been talked about. You seem to have an issue with the first, and main objections to the official explanation, that being how the WTC was destroyed.

You can whine as much and as often as you like, Princess, but the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers all disagree with your opinion.

That was the first thing that was readily noticeable, and many people were stunned by the quick 'collapses" even the news anchors covering the event.

Ah... now there's "irrefutable" proof of a conspiracy for ya! I don't know how you do it!

To leave this first part out is a wrong way to debate it.
I have read the objections that come from people in the fields of science and physics, and they make sense.

I have read the methodology and conclusions of those charged with sorting out what happened on 9/11 as well as independent work from UC Berkeley, Northwestern U., MIT, and Cesar Pelli, all of whom disagree with your opinion.

I have also worked with metal and cutting torches and welders and know from experience that steel does not turn into noodles unless it is exposed to very high temps. I also know that the fires did not reach those temps at the WTC, and were not able to be at the load points, for the duration required to initiate what for the most part, were symmetrical collapses.

You seem to know only that which you choose to know. The metal did not melt but was sufficiently weakened and distorted by the fires to cause the collapse, which it did.

A steel skyscraper being destroyed by fire is an unprecedented event in history, but 3 massive steel buildings being felled by fire should not be ignored.
Asymmetrical damage causing symmetrical collapses on 3 buildings in the same day is certainly a reason to question just exactly how the results came about.

One could hardly call the causes of the collapses "ignored" but I choose to accept the rational, logical, factual findings of the agencies, institutions and individuals already named as opposed to your "personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder."

Something else had to assist the fires started by kerosene. A high temp source was most likely used.The lower part of the structures were not exposed to heat or damage from the planes or fuel. The damaged upper parts were constructed of thinner steel material then the lower, and would have experienced a resistance from the lower parts, thereby slowing down the collapse front to produce much slower decent times then was observed.

Gee, Princess, do you suppose thousands of gallons of jet fuel had any effect?

We also have videos of explosions way below the collapse fronts, that could not possibly be forced air because of the vast distances away from it.
The fires also lasted much less time wise then other buildings that experienced more severe fires, and that did not globally collapse.
This is the biggest red flag if you will, and what started to put doubt in many observant peoples minds.

Of course, there's not a lick of hard evidence that the buildings were rigged or that anyone actively participated in the destruction at the WTC other than those who flew those jets into towers 1 & 2, but thanks for playing.

You ignoring the opposition is no way to debate the topic.
Fuel loads were even admitted by NIST to be minimal as the majority of the kerosene was consumed upon impact and witnessed by the fireballs of the explosions. See what you are also purposefully ignoring is that many sources that you throw about, have no factual basis for a solid hypothesis, and are dependent on government funding for projects and studies, and like the NIST, do not explain how the massive buildings of which close to 80-90% were not effected, were overcome by parts that weighed significantly less, and parts of which did not contribute to the collapses fronts.
Those massive structures could not physically come down, 3 times in one day, in the short amount of time that they did. Time to get that through your head poobut.

You pretending to have proof of something is no way to debate the topic. Once more for The Terminally Dense One:
"there's not a lick of hard evidence that the buildings were rigged or that anyone actively participated in the destruction at the WTC other than those who flew those jets into towers 1 & 2, but thanks for playing"

 

[georgephillip]

What's the connection?

Very few Americans (US Citizens) can wrap their minds around the Evil required for any US Administration to collaborate in the cold blooded murder of 3000 citizens. Very few Americans have any knowledge of Israel's cold blooded murder of 34 US service members in June of 1967. Eyewitness survivors to Israel's deliberate attack are dwindling to a precious few; they're testimony could influence millions of fellow Americans to reconsider their government's capacity for Evil. (Before Dick, Dubya, and Rummy, et.al, die)

So tell me, Princess ... how does a now 46 year old friendly fire incident in the fog of war prove Israel perpetrated 9/11? This should be good.

"Survivors report that the torpedo boat crews swept the decks of USS Liberty with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications equipment and any crewmembers who ventured above decks.[22]

"Damage control firefighters, who had already risked their lives merely by appearing on deck, had to abandon their efforts because their fire hoses had been shredded by machine gun fire.[23]

"Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order 'prepare to abandon ship.'[24]

"This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched..."

What's "friendly" about that fire?

Surely, you noticed my analogy linked the Evil required for US elites to cover-up Israel's deliberate attack of Liberty with the same elites reluctance to fully investigate 911; you're the only one claiming Evil Jews perpetrated 911.

Post that link, Loser.

USS Liberty Memorial: Summary of Events

 

[SAYIT]

What's the connection?

Very few Americans (US Citizens) can wrap their minds around the Evil required for any US Administration to collaborate in the cold blooded murder of 3000 citizens. Very few Americans have any knowledge of Israel's cold blooded murder of 34 US service members in June of 1967. Eyewitness survivors to Israel's deliberate attack are dwindling to a precious few; they're testimony could influence millions of fellow Americans to reconsider their government's capacity for Evil. (Before Dick, Dubya, and Rummy, et.al, die)

So tell me, Princess ... how does a now 46 year old friendly fire incident in the fog of war prove Israel perpetrated 9/11? This should be good.

"Survivors report that the torpedo boat crews swept the decks of USS Liberty with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications equipment and any crewmembers who ventured above decks.[22]

"Damage control firefighters, who had already risked their lives merely by appearing on deck, had to abandon their efforts because their fire hoses had been shredded by machine gun fire.[23]

"Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order 'prepare to abandon ship.'[24]

"This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched..."

What's "friendly" about that fire?

Surely, you noticed my analogy linked the Evil required for US elites to cover-up Israel's deliberate attack of Liberty with the same elites reluctance to fully investigate 911; you're the only one claiming Evil Jews perpetrated 911.

Post that link, Loser.

USS Liberty Memorial: Summary of Events

I claimed "evil Jews" perpetrated 9/11?
You are confused, Princess, but you have the right to "post that link" if you can find it.

 

[georgephillip]

So tell me, Princess ... how does a now 46 year old friendly fire incident in the fog of war prove Israel perpetrated 9/11? This should be good.

"Survivors report that the torpedo boat crews swept the decks of USS Liberty with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications equipment and any crewmembers who ventured above decks.[22]

"Damage control firefighters, who had already risked their lives merely by appearing on deck, had to abandon their efforts because their fire hoses had been shredded by machine gun fire.[23]

"Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order 'prepare to abandon ship.'[24]

"This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched..."

What's "friendly" about that fire?

Surely, you noticed my analogy linked the Evil required for US elites to cover-up Israel's deliberate attack of Liberty with the same elites reluctance to fully investigate 911; you're the only one claiming Evil Jews perpetrated 911.

Post that link, Loser.

USS Liberty Memorial: Summary of Events

I claimed "evil Jews" perpetrated 9/11?
You are confused, Princess, but you have the right to "post that link" if you can find it.

Your words: "how does a now 46 year old friendly fire incident in the fog of war prove Israel perpetrated 9/11." My response was to point out the similar cover-ups involved in both incidents; however, if you support a full investigation of either crime, post away.(with or without links)

 

[Mr. Jones]

Of course, there's not a lick of hard evidence that the buildings were rigged or that anyone actively participated in the destruction at the WTC other than those who flew those jets into towers 1 & 2, but thanks for playing.

You ignoring the opposition is no way to debate the topic.
Fuel loads were even admitted by NIST to be minimal as the majority of the kerosene was consumed upon impact and witnessed by the fireballs of the explosions. See what you are also purposefully ignoring is that many sources that you throw about, have no factual basis for a solid hypothesis, and are dependent on government funding for projects and studies, and like the NIST, do not explain how the massive buildings of which close to 80-90% were not effected, were overcome by parts that weighed significantly less, and parts of which did not contribute to the collapses fronts.
Those massive structures could not physically come down, 3 times in one day, in the short amount of time that they did. Time to get that through your head poobut.

You pretending to have proof of something is no way to debate the topic. Once more for The Terminally Dense One:
"there's not a lick of hard evidence that the buildings were rigged or that anyone actively participated in the destruction at the WTC other than those who flew those jets into towers 1 & 2, but thanks for playing"

Evidence that counters the OCT has been ignored, covered up, silenced and disposed of, these actions should be your first clue something is being hidden.
You believe in a flawed theory, and a story that itself provides no proof, and no hard evidence.
You can't even point to anything that makes a reasonable argument for your adherence to the fantasy you defend. You provide nothing other then the words and story lines of people and agencies that have been caught doing all they can to hide evidence against them.
But the physics don't lie and can't be covered up, once people take the time to understand this, it is apparent that the WTC was destroyed by something other then kerosene initiated fires, and plane damage, and a controlled demolition is the only other plausible option. A reasonable person would have thought that by now, the NIST would release the data of WTC 7 for replication purposes, and would have provided proof and evidence to their theory ( it is after all just a theory) and explained why the massive structures provided little (minimal, their word) resistance.

You scream for evidence when it is available but since you're just another worthless troll, run from the challenge of discussing it.