Proof the cover story for 9/111 began immediately after the attacks

[daws101]

OK, I looked it up, and Daws was incorrect. (maybe)

They had "about" 80 spectators vs. "about" 20 presenters for a total of "about" 100 people at the hearings.

Sponsored by the U.S.-based International Center for 9/11 Studies, the event brought about 20 expert witnesses to explain alleged technical and scientific reasons to doubt the official story. The experts included former U.S. senator Mike Gravel and former U.S. congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

About 80 people came to watch – mainly from Canada and the U.S., but as far afield as Switzerland and Israel – each reserving a spot with a $200 donation. The event was also streamed live on the Internet, at one point reaching about 70,000 viewers.

9/11 truth seeking event held at Ryerson University :: Ryersonian.ca

Throwing in the "about" 70,000 online viewers ads up to "about" 70,100 vs. the total population of the USA & Canada, (347,337,187 people) that means the hearings reached a total of "about" 0.0002018% of it's target audience.

Damn, there's just no stopping this juggernaut.




"about"

I was ballparking it. left out the online viewers (they dont buy hot dogs or hotel rooms)....thanks

 

[Rat in the Hat]

OK, I looked it up, and Daws was incorrect. (maybe)

They had "about" 80 spectators vs. "about" 20 presenters for a total of "about" 100 people at the hearings.

Sponsored by the U.S.-based International Center for 9/11 Studies, the event brought about 20 expert witnesses to explain alleged technical and scientific reasons to doubt the official story. The experts included former U.S. senator Mike Gravel and former U.S. congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

About 80 people came to watch – mainly from Canada and the U.S., but as far afield as Switzerland and Israel – each reserving a spot with a $200 donation. The event was also streamed live on the Internet, at one point reaching about 70,000 viewers.

9/11 truth seeking event held at Ryerson University :: Ryersonian.ca

Throwing in the "about" 70,000 online viewers ads up to "about" 70,100 vs. the total population of the USA & Canada, (347,337,187 people) that means the hearings reached a total of "about" 0.0002018% of it's target audience.

Damn, there's just no stopping this juggernaut.




"about"

I was ballparking it. left out the online viewers (they dont buy hot dogs or hotel rooms)....thanks

Are you sure "about" them not buying hotdogs?

 

[daws101]

OK, I looked it up, and Daws was incorrect. (maybe)

They had "about" 80 spectators vs. "about" 20 presenters for a total of "about" 100 people at the hearings.



9/11 truth seeking event held at Ryerson University :: Ryersonian.ca

Throwing in the "about" 70,000 online viewers ads up to "about" 70,100 vs. the total population of the USA & Canada, (347,337,187 people) that means the hearings reached a total of "about" 0.0002018% of it's target audience.

Damn, there's just no stopping this juggernaut.




"about"

I was ballparking it. left out the online viewers (they dont buy hot dogs or hotel rooms)....thanks

Are you sure "about" them not buying hotdogs?

well, not at the venue anyway...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I noticed that you didn't address the point he was trying to make.
Is it that he showed his work and with two small videos discredited your claim SOUNDLY? Which by the way, was discredited YEARS ago!
Which left you with no course of action except to attack his character!?
Or are you too dumb to understand what was being shown to you?

post to me what agent moron in the hat said and i will discuss it with you.HIM I wont satisfy and give the troll the attention he seeks.

My post WAS to you.
You made the claim that black smoke means oxygen starved. Two videos were posted showing that black smoke is not caused by lack of oxygen.
What is your response to this?

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily.I believe Eots already posted the tape recordings of the firemen saying that just before the collapse that there were not serious and they had them under control.damn your dense.those fires contrary to what that agent in that video said,were not serious fires,only someone on drugs would believe that bullshit. and I see your still evading all the facts and points brought up in the video.nice.btw since you mentioned my sig,its funny that you wont talk about the much more important part of that sig,the video I have listed under MUST SEE VIDEh and that video so you know, has nothing to do with 9/11 just so you know.

oh and a mere collapse of a building doesnt cause body parts to be found several blocks away on rooftops or throw steel beams 600 feet in the air and land in other buildings or make them fall at free fall speed either.

either you ditched junior high school science class,or you dont remember a single thing what you were taught and have totally forgotten eveything.thats something every 7th grader learns at that age.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

why dont you loser start your own inane threads and post all the childish pictures and unfunny . witless pointless quips there ?..you clearly are incapable of discussing 9/11 or
anything to do with the unwarranted influence of the military industrial complex in any kind of honest or rational manner

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower - YouTube

this fire is so intense like that agent said that this lady has no problem leaning against it even though the fire is very intense and really hot.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

post to me what agent moron in the hat said and i will discuss it with you.HIM I wont satisfy and give the troll the attention he seeks.

My post WAS to you.
You made the claim that black smoke means oxygen starved. Two videos were posted showing that black smoke is not caused by lack of oxygen.
What is your response to this?

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily.I believe Eots already posted the tape recordings of the firemen saying that just before the collapse that there were not serious and they had them under control.damn your dense.those fires contrary to what that agent in that video said,were not serious fires,only someone on drugs would believe that bullshit. and I see your still evading all the facts and points brought up in the video.nice.btw since you mentioned my sig,its funny that you wont talk about the much more important part of that sig,the video I have listed under MUST SEE VIDEh and that video so you know, has nothing to do with 9/11 just so you know.

oh and a mere collapse of a building doesnt cause body parts to be found several blocks away on rooftops or throw steel beams 600 feet in the air and land in other buildings or make them fall at free fall speed either.

either you ditched junior high school science class,or you dont remember a single thing what you were taught and have totally forgotten eveything.thats something every 7th grader learns at that age.

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily

Tire fires can be put out easily??

SACRAMENTO — On a hot, windy day last August, a tiny spark from a farm machine set fire to the dry grass along the edge of a huge tire pile near the town of Tracy. Within minutes, 7 million discarded tires were ablaze and a cloud of putrid smoke enveloped a vast agricultural area in the San Joaquin Valley.

"It was like a storm was coming in. I had never seen anything like it," recalled Casey Foley, who was eight miles away in Manteca when the fire started. "When I got up close it looked like the crater of a volcano, black and crispy piles of rubber with flames spewing out."

Now, eight months later, the fire is still burning, propelling itself into the record books as one of the nation's longest and largest tire blazes. But its impact has reached much further than the farming belt it blanketed for months with stinking smoke.

Longest Burning Tire Fire | Tire Fire Sets Legislative Wheels Turning - Los Angeles Times

More oxygen starved black smoke...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sfmE_eY6oA]Tire Fire 1996 Grawn Michigan EPA - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower - YouTube

this fire is so intense like that agent said that this lady has no problem leaning against it even though the fire is very intense and really hot.

I would explain the chimney effect, and why the woman is in cooler air, but it would probably be time wasted on you.

 

[daws101]

posts #84 thru 86 should be laughed at numerous times for maximum pleasure

 

[daws101]

Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower - YouTube

this fire is so intense like that agent said that this lady has no problem leaning against it even though the fire is very intense and really hot.

I would explain the chimney effect, and why the woman is in cooler air, but it would probably be time wasted on you.

you mean to say she wasn't fire proof!

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Why look, Boeing aircraft burn with black smoke in open air too...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyZFASOAe0]INCENDIO FIRE BOEING 737 CHINA AIRLINES NAHA OKINAWA JAPAN 1 - YouTube[/ame]

I wonder why rimjob thinks they burn a different color when they crash into something??

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Ok, back to the OP claims.
The video shows a guy being interviewed about what he witnessed. He saw planes crash into the towers...............the resulting fires.............and then the collapse of both towers. He then makes the GIANT LEAP OF LOGIC that the crashes and fires caused the structural failure of the buildings. How is that "Proof of a Cover Story"? Anyone on those streets that day, (with 2 brain cells to rub together), made the same conclusion. Do you think that everybody witnessing this horrible event, got out their personal copy of the WTC construction plans and starting dissecting the damage to the building?!

I will agree that the guy says all this with a certain amount of arrogance in his voice...............like he knows "exactly" what happened. Then again, there are a lot of know-it-all's in the world that think they have all the answers.

NOW................if you happen to be the sole possessor of the irrefutable evidence that proves that those building came down by something other than structural failure, PLEASE post it.

for once you actually said something intelligent because yes it IS a giant leap of logic saying that the crashes and the fire caused the structural failure because again,anybody who knows anything about the laws of physics know they were violated that day,that fires dont cause buildings to collapse at free fall speed.

also you cripple your arguments here in a major way cause even if you accept the collapse of the towers then you cant explain the collapse of building 7.surely you know about that one? bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission you or nobody can get around because bld 7 WASNT hit by an airplane but it also collapsed and there is no logical explanation for it whatsoever because it was much further away from the other buildings even buildings next door to the towers.

the buildings much closer to the towers including its neighbors next to them were damaged far more extensively and had far more severe fires as the photos prove yet all those buildings remained standing but bld 7 collapsed.all three were owned by jew larry silverstein and all three not only collapsed in the same freefall speed the way buildings do in a controlled demolition,but they also demonstrated the same characterics.
face it,you fell for this fairy tale hook,line, and sinker and are quite one funny coincidence theorist if you still accept the version of the governments. since this was the first time in history buildings collapsed due to fire and again,they all three just happened to owned by silverstein.Major coincidence there.oh and these trolls posting here which btw just so you know,they all KNOW it was an inside job just as much as me and eots do.again they are just here to try and derail truth discussions cause thats what their handlers pay them to do so this is the wisest thing anybody can do with them.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

five farts in a row recently from the trolls.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Ok, back to the OP claims.
The video shows a guy being interviewed about what he witnessed. He saw planes crash into the towers...............the resulting fires.............and then the collapse of both towers. He then makes the GIANT LEAP OF LOGIC that the crashes and fires caused the structural failure of the buildings. How is that "Proof of a Cover Story"? Anyone on those streets that day, (with 2 brain cells to rub together), made the same conclusion. Do you think that everybody witnessing this horrible event, got out their personal copy of the WTC construction plans and starting dissecting the damage to the building?!

I will agree that the guy says all this with a certain amount of arrogance in his voice...............like he knows "exactly" what happened. Then again, there are a lot of know-it-all's in the world that think they have all the answers.

NOW................if you happen to be the sole possessor of the irrefutable evidence that proves that those building came down by something other than structural failure, PLEASE post it.

for once you actually said something intelligent because yes it IS a giant leap of logic saying that the crashes and the fire caused the structural failure because again,anybody who knows anything about the laws of physics know they were violated that day,that fires dont cause buildings to collapse at free fall speed.

also you cripple your arguments here in a major way cause even if you accept the collapse of the towers then you cant explain the collapse of building 7.surely you know about that one? bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission you or nobody can get around because bld 7 WASNT hit by an airplane but it also collapsed and there is no logical explanation for it whatsoever because it was much further away from the other buildings even buildings next door to the towers.

the buildings much closer to the towers including its neighbors next to them were damaged far more extensively and had far more severe fires as the photos prove yet all those buildings remained standing but bld 7 collapsed.all three were owned by jew larry silverstein and all three not only collapsed in the same freefall speed the way buildings do in a controlled demolition,but they also demonstrated the same characterics.
face it,you fell for this fairy tale hook,line, and sinker and are quite one funny coincidence theorist if you still accept the version of the governments. since this was the first time in history buildings collapsed due to fire and again,they all three just happened to owned by silverstein.Major coincidence there.oh and these trolls posting here which btw just so you know,they all KNOW it was an inside job just as much as me and eots do.again they are just here to try and derail truth discussions cause thats what their handlers pay them to do so this is the wisest thing anybody can do with them.

all three just happened to owned by silverstein

Stop LYING!!!!

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned the buildings, and LS only leased them.

In 1998, the Port Authority decided to privatize the World Trade Center, leasing the buildings to a private company to manage, and awarded the lease to Silverstein Properties in July 2001.

World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And while you're trying to make the implication that only the buildings Larry rented were the ones to collapse, maybe you can explain why buildings 4 & 5 didn't collapse.

On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.

9-11 Research: Controlling Interests

 

[Crackerjack]

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

 

[daws101]

Ok, back to the OP claims.
The video shows a guy being interviewed about what he witnessed. He saw planes crash into the towers...............the resulting fires.............and then the collapse of both towers. He then makes the GIANT LEAP OF LOGIC that the crashes and fires caused the structural failure of the buildings. How is that "Proof of a Cover Story"? Anyone on those streets that day, (with 2 brain cells to rub together), made the same conclusion. Do you think that everybody witnessing this horrible event, got out their personal copy of the WTC construction plans and starting dissecting the damage to the building?!

I will agree that the guy says all this with a certain amount of arrogance in his voice...............like he knows "exactly" what happened. Then again, there are a lot of know-it-all's in the world that think they have all the answers.

NOW................if you happen to be the sole possessor of the irrefutable evidence that proves that those building came down by something other than structural failure, PLEASE post it.

for once you actually said something intelligent because yes it IS a giant leap of logic saying that the crashes and the fire caused the structural failure because again,anybody who knows anything about the laws of physics know they were violated that day,that fires dont cause buildings to collapse at free fall speed.

also you cripple your arguments here in a major way cause even if you accept the collapse of the towers then you cant explain the collapse of building 7.surely you know about that one? bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission you or nobody can get around because bld 7 WASNT hit by an airplane but it also collapsed and there is no logical explanation for it whatsoever because it was much further away from the other buildings even buildings next door to the towers.

the buildings much closer to the towers including its neighbors next to them were damaged far more extensively and had far more severe fires as the photos prove yet all those buildings remained standing but bld 7 collapsed.all three were owned by jew larry silverstein and all three not only collapsed in the same freefall speed the way buildings do in a controlled demolition,but they also demonstrated the same characterics.
face it,you fell for this fairy tale hook,line, and sinker and are quite one funny coincidence theorist if you still accept the version of the governments. since this was the first time in history buildings collapsed due to fire and again,they all three just happened to owned by silverstein.Major coincidence there.oh and these trolls posting here which btw just so you know,they all KNOW it was an inside job just as much as me and eots do.again they are just here to try and derail truth discussions cause thats what their handlers pay them to do so this is the wisest thing anybody can do with them.

fuck me! not the old "laws of physics were violated shit again"
Anybody WHO knows anything about physics knows they cannot be violated ..
handjob is regurgitating...
if.... you handjob are going to make that debunked argument ,you could start out by listing what laws were"violated" and how they were violated.

 

[daws101]

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

it's those damn comic books he looks at!

 

[Crackerjack]

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

it's those damn comic books he looks at!

Excellent choice of words.

Based upon his posts, it's safe to say that he's incapable of much reading.

 

[eots]

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

the fires where not reported to be very large by first response and eyewitnesses near the impact area .testing of the steel shows no evidence of the temp required to cause failure of structural steel

 

[Liability]

fires emitting black smoke are not serious fires and can be put out easily.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

the fires where not reported to be very large by first response and eyewitnesses near the impact area .testing of the steel shows no evidence of the temp required to cause failure of structural steel

Nonsense. Nonsense. And for a refreshing change of pace, nonsense.

Black smoke doesn't mean diddly dick: Black Smoke

And the conclusion that the fires caused the joints to give way leading to the collapse has never come close to being scientifically refuted.