Who Supports The Official 9/11 Gov’t Cover Stories

[eots]

here comes poor little retarded dive con...with his straw man and his denial.....lol

 

[eots]

Because it dismantles their arguments.

hardly..its because it is trash ...we have researched it well with critical thinking and logic...unlike you

And lots of mind-altering, psychotropic drugs.

no just a examination of the evidence,,,no rational thinking person would think the 911 commission report adequate or realistic...that simple... and only a complete idiot would be satisfied with a entertainment magazine being the voice of the official 911 story..but clearly you are the other kind

 

[DiveCon]

here comes poor little retarded dive con...with his straw man and his denial.....lol

look who is calling someone retarded LOL

 

[KittenKoder]

With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...

Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.

 

[eots]

With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...

Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.

the evidence is very real..just beyond your scope.....fact

 

[KittenKoder]

Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...

 

[eots]

Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...

more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....

 

[KittenKoder]

Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...

more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....

Yeah ... you know you are suppose to mix that koolaide with water and drink it right?

 

[DiveCon]

Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...

more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....

have you eaten in a while
first you were talking about peas, now eggs
i think you are having a sugar low and need something to eat

 

[eots]

Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...

more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....

Yeah ... you know you are suppose to mix that koolaide with water and drink it right?

more stupid programed responses...truly...I feel for you

 

[KittenKoder]

 

[C-101]

The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . .

Little empty hole?

The hole is huge, look at the satellite image you posted.

Debris is everywhere and there is a massive scorch mark across the land.

Were you expecting an entire plane intact? The fuselage blew up and burned out for crying out loud.

. . . and cannot be more than just a few feet deep. The evidence also says this hole was created ‘before’ this US Geological Survey picture was taken on April 20, 1994.

Strange, the topographic version of the map tells a different story.

Your photo is of a reclaimed strip mine not a field, so there's obviously going to be holes there.

Nice try.

The Gov’t says AA77 crashed into this standing E-ring wall

. . . going 530 miles per hour, when the evidence clearly says that no 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed here.

Perhaps you need to broaden your perspective of the crash site.

The rear C-ring wall is only 220 feet from the standing E-ring Wall, but the only evidence we have is a little 8 to 10-feet hole . . .

Little? Do you honestly think that after crashing through a Pentagon ring a plane is going to maintain its structural integrity?

Seriously, give the engineers of the Pentagon some credit. They didn't construct the building out of butter.

. . . again saying that no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here; just like these military/aviation experts:

The aviator starts off with a lie right away about there being no aircraft wings, debris etc.

The Gov’t says WTC-7 Collapsed from building fires/debris, when the evidence shows the 47-story overbuilt skyscraper imploding into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds

Yes, it did implode. But it was because of the fact that the support columns gave way after retaining as much as 25% structural damage from the twin towers' collapse along with a 7 hour long diesel fuel fed fire according to the NIST.

. . . collapsing CD-style into a neat little pile, while the buildings on the perimeter remain perfectly intact.

Perhaps you should get your eyes checked.

A huge chunk of the building below WTC7 in your picture is missing.

Typical building fires burn at around 800-degrees while red-iron structural steel melts at near 2800 degrees (link).

I can't believe you people are still holding on to that misnomer.

The steel does not have to melt for the structure to collapse, but rather only needs to buckle under the pressure of retaining extraordinary downward weight at only half of its structural integrity. A building fire fed by fuel, jet or diesel, will accomplish temperatures high enough to reduce steel strength by 50% which when combined with physical structural damage is more than enough to bring a building down.

The reasons that WTC-7 could not possibly burn down from building fires is explained very well in this short video. A steel-framed skyscraper has never burned down in the history of this planet, but the Gov’t says that happened three times on 9/11; IF you believe the Official Cover Stories.

I daresay 9/11 was more than a building fire. The combination of a jet liner impact, jet fuel fed fires, unusual engineering design, and in WTC7's case, structural damage from the twin towers' collapse, is more than enough to bring three buildings down.

9/11 was an unprecedented incident and I would not expect any of those buildings to remain intact after what they went through.

Those among you voting “Yes” with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their inside-job cohorts should be prepared to provide evidence for “WHY” you hold to the Official Cover Stories having ‘nothing’ whatsoever to do with the ‘evidence.’ A “No” vote means that you realize the ‘evidence’ simply does not even begin to match the Official Cover Stories.l

On the contrary. It is your job to prove every detail of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you wish to assail an accepted truth you better have all bases covered with no holes in your opposing "reality". Otherwise, you are no better than the very people you purport to call liars.

But for mere entertainment I like to mess with 9/11 "truthers" and their "theories" so I'm an exception to the rule.

 

[eots]

all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt

 

[KittenKoder]

That's messier than most plane crashes I've seen.

 

[C-101]

all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt

How did I know that this is the kind of response I would get?

 

[eots]

all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt

How did I know that this is the kind of response I would get?

most likely because you know the bullshit your talking...and its true how uniformed you are so there is not much else you can say

 

[C-101]

all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt

How did I know that this is the kind of response I would get?

most likely because you know the bullshit your talking...and its true how uniformed you are so there is not much else you can say

That's rich.

In fact, that's deserving of thanks and a rep comment.

 

[Terral]

Hi Big D with Kalam, slackjawed, Eots and 9/11 Inside Job mentioned:

Now we are beginning to get somewhere. :0)

Thanks for the kind words but I do not think I really can answer the poll question since I only read small parts of the 9/11 commission and NIST report.

Let's get this straight: Big D cannot decide if this . . .

. . . is the picture of 'an empty hole,' OR if this picture represents a crashed 100-ton Jetliner, because he has not read the 911CR, nor the NIST Report. :0) You either believe the Official Gov't Cover Stories (Yes) saying a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed through this . . .

. . . standing E-ring Pentagon wall, OR you realize that the evidence simply DOES NOT (No) even begin to match the evidence. This is a very simple "Yes, I believe the Gov't," OR "No, I do not" question that everyone here holds to one way or the other. Why? This stuff is TOO SIMPLE: The Official Gov't Stories either add up (Yes) OR they do not (No). Period. If you cannot answer the simple OP question with a Yes or No, then you have no business writing on this topic cuckoo. Let's try this again:

Okay, hotshot: Do you agree that this picture is a crashed 100-ton Jetliner like Senor Bush and Karl Rove say (Yes), OR are you looking at the picture of 'an empty cotton-picking hole' (No)?? My eyes see 'an EMPTY HOLE,' which is the reason I voted "No" in the Poll that the Big_D is doing everything to excuse himself from answering honestly.

Here is the close-up shot again from the Opening Post, so the cowards strutting around here can try and make up their minds if the Gov't Story that a 100-ton Jetliner crashed here is true OR false. :0)

This is the size of the Jetliner you are missing and this . . .

. . . is the size of the Jetliner in relation to the itsy, bitsy little empty hole with the News Videos shot on 9/11:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc"]YouTube - 9/11 Flight 93 Rare Footage[/ame]

The man says the little hole is 20 feet by 15 or 10 feet, but here is the little video clip again to help the Big_D out:

Click Here

Okay, Big_D, so let's try again: You either agree with Senor Bush and Dick Cheney that a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into that little empty hole (like Kalam and slackjawed ), OR you agree with Terral, Eots and 9/11 Inside Job that the evidence supporting the Gov't Conspiracy Theory (pic) simply does NOT ADD UP.

Hey man: If you are going to come out to this fine USMB Conspiracy Forum and support the Official Gov't Cover Stories, then at least have the backbone to show us your reasons why. Even if 9/11 Inside Job is correct and you are nothing more than a DoD Disinformation Operative, then at least razzle dazzle us with some 'Disinformation' to make Senor Bush and Karl Rove eusa_liar look like they are telling 'the' 911Truth.

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Ms. Kitty:

With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...

Ms. Kitty here is the second sorry excuse coming to these Conspiracy Theory discussions like this (pic) showing blind loyalty to the Official Cover Stories in direct contradiction to 'the evidence.' Let me get this straight right here: When Senor Bush and his lying adviser Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld turn out to be 9/11 Inside-job Bad Guys, then those among you voting "Yes" in support of their Official Cover Story LIES can join them in the lake of fire like 'all liars and murders' (Rev. 21:8). Here we go again, Ms. Kitty:

You are either looking at the picture of a crashed 100-ton Jetliner (like this and this), like Senor Bush and Karl Rove say (Yes, I believe the Govt), OR you are looking at the picture of 'an empty hole' (No, the Govt story does not add up). There is no room on the fence where the Gov't 'is' telling us 'the' 911Truth 'and' LYING at the very same time. Therefore, you are either standing in the Light and telling 'the truth' about this . . .

. . . little empty hole, OR you continue running around blindly supporting LIARS and MURDERERS of innocent Americans doing everything to cover their tracks through DoD Counterintelligence Disinformation Campaigns that throw a ton of dust into the air.

Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.

This has NOTHING to do with hating the Govt!!! Ms. Kitty is trying to derail the OP Poll Question using her typical diversionary stupidity, as if calling an 'empty hole' and 'empty hole' from the EVIDENCE means you hate the cotton-picking Govt! No. Your eyes either see a crashed 100-ton Jetliner . . .

. . . OR they see ‘AN EMPTY HOLE.’ Senor Bushie and Dick Cheney have their own “Conspiracy Theory” (pic) that either matches the evidence OR simply does not, which has everything to do with these murders of innocent Americans ‘and’ NOTHING to do with liking or hating the Govt.

This is the standing E-ring Wall where ‘you’ say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed (Yes, I believe the Govt Story), OR a real 100-ton Jetliner DID NOT (No, the Govt story does not add up) crash here like Jamie McIntyre said while standing directly in front of the Pentagon on 9/11:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm_cnFoMHjA"]YouTube - Live CNN Report of Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon[/ame]

The right answer for each related 9/11 Inside-job attack is “No,” because the ‘evidence’ simply does NOT say what Senor Bush and Karl Rove are saying. Period. If you want to side with the Govt that Ms. Kitty ‘loves’ so very much, then by all means show us your ‘pictures’ of a crashed Flight 93 and Flight 77 to support that blind loyalty . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi C-101:

The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . .

Little empty hole?

The hole is huge, look at the satellite image you posted.

That picture (here) was taken on 4/20/1994. You Gov’t Cover Story Ops talk about the size of the empty ‘hole,’ because of the lack of evidence for any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0)

Debris is everywhere and there is a massive scorch mark across the land.

No. The empty hole . . .

. . . is definitely cut into an empty field. I see a man wearing a dark shirt and light-colored pair of pants walking to our left about noontime, but no signs of any crashed 100-ton Jetliner. In fact, we see grass growing on all the inclines/slopes . . .

. . . which again says that this little hole was created ‘before’ the 9/11 attacks ever took place. Any ‘evidence’ found ‘below’ this unburned grass was obviously ‘planted’ by the same Gov’t that you are here to blindly support . . .

Were you expecting an entire plane intact? The fuselage blew up and burned out for crying out loud.

No. We are still looking at pictures . . .

. . . of AN EMPTY HOLE . . .

. . . no matter how . . .

. . . you want to skin this 9/11 cat. Do not come to one of my 9/11 threads like this (pic) and expect to blow smoke up my skirt using nonsense and stupidity by asking silly straw man questions. You are missing about 100 tons of Jetliner evidence, because the Gov’t has been LYING from day one.

Strange, the topographic version of the map tells a different story.

Your photo is of a reclaimed strip mine not a field, so there's obviously going to be holes there.

Nice try.

LOL! This guy has no pictures of Flight 93 or AA77 crashed anywhere, but he has the wherewithal to recognize the little strip mine hole in the empty Shanksville field from 4/20/1994 (here). This is the same little empty hole in the same empty field that we see in all the Flight 93 pictures of the empty hole:

And yet, C-101 wants to claim that we have tons and tons and tons of Jetliner debris in and around this little empty hole. No, that is not even a nice try . . . :0)

Perhaps you need to broaden your perspective of the crash site.

Maybe you need to tell us more Loyal Bushie LIES, because no 100-ton Jetliner crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day. Period.

This is a picture of the standing E-ring Wall where you want to say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed going 530 miles per hour. :0)

Here is a broader view of the standing E-ring Wall where ‘you’ and Senor Bushie and Karl Rove say a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed on 9/11. C-101 is showing you E-ring roof ‘post collapse’ pictures taken ‘after’ 10:15 AM on 9/11, but the Pentagon was originally struck at 9:32 AM (FAA Timeline) just about 45 minutes earlier.

Little? Do you honestly think that after crashing through a Pentagon ring a plane is going to maintain its structural integrity?

Listen here hotshot: Return to this 911Truth discussion in the time that C-101 has something more to offer than STUPID QUESTIONS that only insult our combined intellect.

This is a picture of the North Tower entry hole created about 45 minutes ‘before’ the Pentagon was attacked and you ‘can’ see the wingtips extending on either end of the massive impact hole.

This is the very location where ‘you say’ AA77 crashed going 530 miles per hour and we see no signs of any wingtips and no massive hole and nothing whatsoever to tell us that a 100-ton Jetliner crashed here.

Here is a close-up shot from the left side of the little impact hole where you ‘can’ see the undamaged SUV parked directly in front of Column Line (CL) #8. A man can stand on the roof of that green SUV and reach up to the second-story concrete slab elevation ‘and’ the two windows to the left of the 18-feet 3-inch impact hole are not even broken (damage schematic)! Go ahead and explain to these readers how an almost 50-feet tall 100-ton Jetliner passed ‘over’ that untouched SUV ‘and’ under the still-intact second-story concrete slab ‘and’ without breaking one third-story window to boot! :0) The temporary construction fence is thrown ‘back’ in our direction and was not dragged into the building by any 100-ton Jetliner. The rear C-ring wall is only 220-feet from this location . . .

. . . so even on a 45-degree trajectory angle (pic) the 330 feet should have been covered by the 100-ton Jetliner in just .39 seconds, but the two six-ton Rolls-Royce Engines (pic) never came out the C-ring wall; not to mention the 60-ton Titanium frame:

You are missing about 200 seats, massive wing sections and tail section, indestructible landing gear and engines, fuselage and the whole 9 cotton-picking yards!

Seriously, give the engineers of the Pentagon some credit. They didn't construct the building out of butter.

The masonry wall has nothing to do with the fact that you are missing 100 tons of evidence that a real Jetliner crashed here. Let’s give these military/aviation experts some credit for concluding that NO 100-ton Jetliner crashed here:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA"]Believe These Guys OR C-101[/ame]

The aviator starts off with a lie right away about there being no aircraft wings, debris etc.

The Official Cover Story says AA77 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon at 9:38 AM, which is either ‘the truth’ OR a fabricated LIE. Do not sit there and talk about missing wings, when you are missing a 100-ton Jetliner! You do NOT even have the massive impact hole saying a real 100-ton Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon ‘and’ you are missing the cotton picking Jetliner too! :0)

Yes, it did implode. But it was because of the fact that the support columns gave way after retaining as much as 25% structural damage from the twin towers' collapse along with a 7 hour long diesel fuel fed fire according to the NIST.

Now this guy is passing from realm nonsense to the absolute ridiculous! The Official Cover Story says WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris and WTC-1 is 350 feet away from WTC-7 (pic).

Here is a picture of WTC-7 collapsing ‘and’ you see no fire through the unbroken windows saying there is NO damage from either Twin Towers collapse. And yet . . .

. . . “all” of the WTC-7 2800-degree columns, beams, girders and bar-joists were ‘severed’ to send the overbuilt skyscraper down into its own footprint in just 6.6 seconds. No building fire and no building debris can ‘cut’ all of these ‘Compartmentalized’ steel supports at the very same ‘time’ to create a CD-like Implosion, unless a Demolition Crew wired the building for the CD Implosion. :0) The silly “pancake” argument has no merit at all, because we are not looking at 47 concrete slabs piled one atop the other; because we are looking at a typical Controlled Demolition Job carried out with military precision.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIP52rru7Y"]YouTube - WTC 7 Collapse Explanation Explosives[/ame]

The little video was taped in Italian, but the 911Truth of WTC-7 Controlled Demolition remains perfectly clear . . .

Perhaps you should get your eyes checked.

My eyes are working just fine. Thank you very much. C-101 is here to defend the Official Gov’t Cover Story using nothing more than nonsense and utter stupidity, but my eyes need to be checked. BTW, I just passed my driver’s license eye test good until 2017 without any eyeglasses. :0)

A huge chunk of the building below WTC7 in your picture is missing.

LOL! WTC-7 was brought down into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds, when the FDNY predicted the collapse amid many CD pre-explosions. You are making my CD case (my thread), because WTC-7 collapsed ‘symmetrically’ straight down; which means the massive steel supported were ‘severed’ simultaneously like in any CD Implosion Job. A chunk of WTC-7 missing would force the massive skyscraper to lean in a particular direction ‘and’ that never happened in this ‘symmetrical collapse.’

I can't believe you people are still holding on to that misnomer.

I can believe that C-101 is here to defend the Official Cover Story LIES, even though all of the ‘evidence’ clearly shows the Govt is LYING (like you). Typical building fires burn at around 800 degrees ‘and’ for an average of only 20 minutes (link again), but WTC-7 shows no fires through the unbroken windows anyway. :0)

The steel does not have to melt for the structure to collapse, but rather only needs to buckle under the pressure of retaining extraordinary downward weight at only half of its structural integrity.

There is no heat source in WTC-7 to melt or soften one pound of 2800-degree red-iron structural steel. Period! I have over 30 years of General Contracting/Demolition experience (#3), so do not try to lecture me about the structural integrity of anything. Heat energy travels from the hot to the cold areas of the massive steel-framed network far quicker than any single component can be soften to buckle. That means the massive steel columns directly adjacent to the heat source will transfer that heat energy to adjacent beams and columns, before one pound of 2800-degree steel is softened. Even if you had sufficient 2800-degree heat energy applied directly to every WTC-7 column at the same time (and you did not), then the heat energy would be absorbed by the entire steel-framed network to be transferred to the ground through the massive concrete/steel pads supporting each column. Your problem is that all WTC-7 columns included 3-hour spray-on fireproofing insulation (911Research.com) and all steel supports were ‘Compartmentalized’ by solid concrete slabs horizontally ‘and’ curtain walls vertically; not to mention the gypsum wallboard encasing each column from any potential fire. This C-101 guy obviously has no idea about what he is talking about . . .

A building fire fed by fuel, jet or diesel, will accomplish temperatures high enough to reduce steel strength by 50% which when combined with physical structural damage is more than enough to bring a building down.

Bullony! Once again this guy has no clue . . . First of all, WTC-7 was NOT struck by any Jetliner. Secondly, any diesel fuel hydrocarbon fire burns at FAR below the required temperatures (911Research.com). Your hydrocarbon fire ‘maximum gas temperature’ is still more than 1000 degrees too low ‘and’ the massive steel-frame network still transports any heat energy ‘away’ from the heat source to the cooler areas more quickly than any single component can be heated beyond even the ‘fire’ temperature. This guy is pretending that I can place diesel fuel inside a 47-story overbuilt skyscraper, toss in a match, and run away, for the entire structure to implode into a neat little pile. :0)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c[/ame]

Anyone with any doubt about open-air hydrocarbon fires taking down skyscrapers (heh) should watch this little short video. No. The simple 911Truth is that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org), just like these professional architects and engineers have been saying all along. This C-101 guy is here to defend Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld if they say Santa Claus crashed into the Pentagon going 530 miles per hour and Rudolph was injured in the attack. Yes. Loyal Bushie DUPES (pic and pic and pic) abound . . .

GL,

Terral