try to convince me it was anything other than the official story.

[CurveLight]

Hi Curve:

That broadbrushing makes very little sense. There are several highly intelligent and very successful people who doubt bush's version. To dismiss everyone with a simple couture wave is disingenuous.

Mr. Fizz cool is here to push the Official Cover Story LIES (#7-10) . . . no matter how ridiculous ... and 'all liars' end up here.

GL,

Terral

Any time you have any real proof that the official story is a Lie we will be glad to listen to it. However the Moussaoui trial kind of reinforced the official story and the new trials coming up will be more of the same. Looks like you need some real proof to get into that courtroom with. Proof that you just don't have.

Those shake n bake trials are not good references for giving credence to the OCT. Creativedreams just started a great thread with pages of information from experts in a wide range of fields, including career Military experts who have no problem admitting something is seriously wrong with the OCT.

 

[CurveLight]

It seems one of the biggest obstacles in examination is the belief nobody in our government nor other americans would permit or play an active role for such atrocities. Not saying this applies to you, it's just a general observation. Those who do openly question are ridiculed in the hopes of silencing them. I see that as the phenomenon of Nationalism. It's very bizarre people find it motivating to attack others as being whack jobs for wanting the truth. Many people have lost their jobs for openly questioning the official version and these are not whacko french fry makers at BK. Apparently many do not know it was surviving families who created the truth movement and the commission.

There are several anomalies that point in the general direction of complacency or an active role. Two weeks after the attacks the bush admin passed legislation to offer the families money but only on the condition they did not sue the airlines. When has that ever happened? Especially so soon. Normally it would take years of court battles to squeeze one rusty Lincoln out of the government but in this case the government tosses out millions and millions in exchange for silence? There are quite a few of these Virgin examples and I have not studied the towers demolition theory very much because from my pov the strongest case for challenging the official version is the Pentagon. As for the three buildings that collapsed, all three were Virgins and it took (I believe) over 6 years for NIST to explain why wtc 7 came down. That's pretty bizarre considering there were no physical mysteries.

I see that day as one of Murder. As in any murder trial there are two crucial components: motive and opportunity. Thanks for not offering me a free tin hat. Lol. I don't know what happened that day but the official version is so spaced with gaps it's nearly impossible to accept it without closer scrutiny.

i dont see anything wrong with the government offering the money to the victims in return for them not suing the airlines. the airlines took a big hit from this and if you remember they got bailed out later. also the families didnt have to wait years. i think it was a win-win situation for everyone except the common taxpayer. the families could choose not to take the money and proceed with filing lawsuits (in fact i think some did).

personally, i dont find it difficult that someone in the government would do something this horrible. what i have a problem with is the thousands and thousands of people needed to pull off most of the comspiracy scenarios. i really think its quite impossible to silence thousands of people involved in killing thousands of americans and have nobody come forward.

like i said before, this is the same government that couldnt keep the president getting a blowjob a secret.

I'm having a real difficult time with the green light given on what some refer to as hush money. The money was offered within the framework of extortion....not out of sympathy. The money was designed to prevent an investigation into the hijackings. You really don't find it odd that was done immediately after the attacks?

 

[Fizz]

Mr. Fizz cool is here to push the Official Cover Story LIES (#7-10) . . . no matter how ridiculous ... and 'all liars' end up here.

GL,

Terral

please refrain from spreading lies about me. you dont know me. you know nothing about me. i'm not here to "push" anything except logic. (which you obviously dont have)

 

[eots]

Mr. Fizz cool is here to push the Official Cover Story LIES (#7-10) . . . no matter how ridiculous ... and 'all liars' end up here.

GL,

Terral

please refrain from spreading lies about me. you dont know me. you know nothing about me. i'm not here to "push" anything except logic. (which you obviously dont have)

logic like supporting a report that is denounced by the investigator responsible for it
and where is exactly is the logic in that ???

 

[candycorn]

eots=

 

[eots]

cornycunt...

 

[candycorn]

Hi Mr. Fizz:

Mr. Fizz is here to push the Official Cover Story LIES in any way possible. Period.

You'll note that 9/11 Whackjob never ever tries to explain what happened,

there are some problems with the conspiracy theories. so let me take a step by step approach to this.

1. as far as the 9/11 attacks are concerned i think most people agree the twin towers were hit by airplanes. is there anybody that wishes to argue this point?

Try making the same case for WTC-7 (my WTC-7 CD Topic) that was struck my no Jetliner, but suffered the identical CD Implosion Fate!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Is WTC-7 Collapsing From Building Fires[/ame]

3. so we already have severe damage to a building, people dying by the thousands, etc.
so why blow up the buildings with explosives?

That is how Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org) works. Mr. Fizz is asking questions, when he should be providing Official Cover Story evidence . . .

GL,

Terral

Terral is right.agent Fizz is here to push the propaganda piece that muslins and Bin Laden were behind the attacks and he ignores irrefutable evidence that explosives brought the towers down.someone new to this site like the last poster that just posted,should read the posts of myself,Eots and Terral over here on terrals thread at this link below.unlike the Bush dupes here,we have evidence and facts to back up our claims.

The evidence never seems to be brought up though.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...7-was-a-controlled-demolition-inside-job.html


also this post of mine is a post that Fizz or nobody else here has EVER been able to refute that explosives brought the towers down despite their pathetic efforts.

think you MEANT to say his job is to prove that it didnt collapse CD style in its own footprint Terral? which of of course the Bush dupe cant do that.He has made pathetic attempts to convince us that it didnt fall at 6.5 seconds freefall speed to no avail and also satalite photos taken a week after the towers collapsed showed fires still going with temps that were far too hot and intense to be office fires.

the fires had been hosed down everyday for that whole week.so much so one firefighter said it was like a lake because there was so much water sprayed down on the fires.impossible for office fires to STILL be burning at that point.

Of course since something like 200 cars were in the basement, almost all with gasoline, motor oil, and lord knows what else was in mechanical rooms, workshops, etc that are usually located in the basement, it is totally understandable how fires would continue to burn for so long.

However molten metal which many rescue workers spotted underneath all three towers at the bottom of the towers which was still burning despite all the fires put on it,

Just never photographed. How very shocking.

IS a consistant sign of thermite.

Somehow a thermite reaction went on for a week? Sure it did. LOL

Not to mention that 7 of the most renowed scientists

Dr. Steven Jones is unemployed and considered a nutjob by most real life scientist.

 

[eots]

Hi Mr. Fizz:

Mr. Fizz is here to push the Official Cover Story LIES in any way possible. Period.

You'll note that 9/11 Whackjob never ever tries to explain what happened,



Try making the same case for WTC-7 (my WTC-7 CD Topic) that was struck my no Jetliner, but suffered the identical CD Implosion Fate!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Is WTC-7 Collapsing From Building Fires[/ame]



That is how Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org) works. Mr. Fizz is asking questions, when he should be providing Official Cover Story evidence . . .

GL,

Terral

The evidence never seems to be brought up though.


Of course since something like 200 cars were in the basement, almost all with gasoline, motor oil, and lord knows what else was in mechanical rooms, workshops, etc that are usually located in the basement, it is totally understandable how fires would continue to burn for so long.


Just never photographed. How very shocking.

IS a consistant sign of thermite.

Somehow a thermite reaction went on for a week? Sure it did. LOL

Not to mention that 7 of the most renowed scientists

Dr. Steven Jones is unemployed and considered a nutjob by most real life scientist.

why does it suddenly smell like fish??

 

[candycorn]

eots=

 

[Fizz]

logic like supporting a report that is denounced by the investigator responsible for it
and where is exactly is the logic in that ???

there was only one investigator?

and he disagreed with himself?!!

so what engineering study does he support? certainly if this engineering study is so wrong then he must support a better one, right?

 

[eots]

logic like supporting a report that is denounced by the investigator responsible for it
and where is exactly is the logic in that ???

there was only one investigator?

and he disagreed with himself?!!

so what engineering study does he support? certainly if this engineering study is so wrong then he must support a better one, right?

there is only one lead investigator and he states what he supports.. (the archiving of all NIST data an a reinvestigation by an independent panel ) and only an idiot would conclude that means he supports some other studiy already done by someone else

 

[Fizz]

logic like supporting a report that is denounced by the investigator responsible for it
and where is exactly is the logic in that ???

there was only one investigator?

and he disagreed with himself?!!

so what engineering study does he support? certainly if this engineering study is so wrong then he must support a better one, right?

there is only one lead investigator and he states what he supports.. (the archiving of all NIST data an a reinvestigation by an independent panel ) and only an idiot would conclude that means he supports some other studiy already done by someone else

see, here is one problem with what you post. first you say he denounces the report ( a lie) and then you change it to him supporting a re-investigation by an independent panel.

i think he is right.

at what point does he say the conclusions of the NIST are wrong?

another problem is that you keep insisting that fires cant eventually cause the collapse of a steel building (as if you are qualified to make this conclusion) although structural engineers agree with the findings of the NIST http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

and finally, the last problem, you keep insisting demolition explosives were used and you still havent shown any proof at all.

 

[Fizz]

and finally, the last problem, you keep insisting demolition explosives were used and you still havent shown any proof at all.

wait. thats not exactly right. you did show evidence that was proven to be a LIE!!!

 

[eots]

there was only one investigator?

and he disagreed with himself?!!

so what engineering study does he support? certainly if this engineering study is so wrong then he must support a better one, right?

there is only one lead investigator and he states what he supports.. (the archiving of all NIST data an a reinvestigation by an independent panel ) and only an idiot would conclude that means he supports some other studiy already done by someone else

see, here is one problem with what you post. first you say he denounces the report ( a lie) and then you change it to him supporting a re-investigation by an independent panel.

i think he is right.

at what point does he say the conclusions of the NIST are wrong?

another problem is that you keep insisting that fires cant eventually cause the collapse of a steel building (as if you are qualified to make this conclusion) although structural engineers agree with the findings of the NIST http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

and finally, the last problem, you keep insisting demolition explosives were used and you still havent shown any proof at all.

he calls them inconclusive..in question and pleas for an independent reinvestigation and you keep claiming building fires did it... but have no evidence of the temperatures required

 

[eots]

and finally, the last problem, you keep insisting demolition explosives were used and you still havent shown any proof at all.

wait. thats not exactly right. you did show evidence that was proven to be a LIE!!!

I believe the proven lie is your bulge proof of thermal expansion lie

 

[Fizz]

he calls them inconclusive..in question and pleas for an independent reinvestigation and you keep claiming building fires did it... but have no evidence of the temperatures required

so you just admitted you lied about what he said. you said he denounced it. that was a lie.

i have evidence that there was fire present in the building.
do you have evidence there was any explosives?

 

[eots]

see, here is one problem with what you post. first you say he denounces the report ( a lie

)




“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,”

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”



r. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation




Verb 1. denounce - speak out against,criticise, criticize, pick apart, knock - find fault with; express criticism of; point out real or perceived flaws; "The paper criticized the new movie"; "Don't knock the food--it's free"
fulminate, rail - criticize severely; "He fulminated against the Republicans' plan to cut Medicare"; "She railed against the bad social policies"

fucking idiot

 

[Fizz]

and finally, the last problem, you keep insisting demolition explosives were used and you still havent shown any proof at all.

wait. thats not exactly right. you did show evidence that was proven to be a LIE!!!

I believe the proven lie is your bulge proof of thermal expansion lie

" The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building."

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

there is also this little interesting bit of info in that article
"The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos."

 

[eots]

wait. thats not exactly right. you did show evidence that was proven to be a LIE!!!

I believe the proven lie is your bulge proof of thermal expansion lie

" The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building."

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

there is also this little interesting bit of info in that article
"The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos."

this is a description of their thermal expansion theory nothing more...and nowhere does it speak of your bulge..the only one lying here is you and as we know there are reports of explosions before the collapse from occupants of the building.. NIST simply ignores witnesses and did not supply witnesses statements to the lead investigator even after repeated formal request


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[candycorn]

eots=