9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SAYIT]

What 5 minute video is he harping about all the time? My bet is it's been debunked hundreds of times on most every site he goes to......

facts! he don't need no stinkin' facts!

Maybe you'd like to post the facts that you rely on that solidifies your belief in the "official conspiracy theory" and the narrative you were told about 9-11 is "factually" sound?

any evidence of the temperatures predicted to as required to cause structural failure...because NIST could find no evidence in any of the materials tested of these temperatures ever being reached

There is no evidence that the temps required to destroy the WTC buildings were ever achieved, we know this, as well as the NIST tests being a failure, still they claim the destruction as being blamed on fires primarily.
Yet we witness comments by Dawgshit such as...this when a credible objection is made that the NIST narrative is proven by physics, science, and calculations, AND NIST's own failure to prove their guess is anywhere close to being true and correct.

false declarative no evidence.

Dipshit Dawgshit and his ilk are adhereing to "evidence" provided by NIST that has been shown and proven to be flawed, failed, unsound, and blatent lies. These people don't give a shit what anyone else says despite the fact that they can be pointed to the credible calculations, formulas, and information that shows the NIST and the OCT to be nothing more then BS.

The NIST report was laboriously prepared by credible scientists. Your prob and that of the loony CT world is it doen't conform to your lunacy. Carry on, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

You seem to be viewing the government as just one big entity and ignoring the many tentacles that are attached to it and the compartmentalization of the departments, and even within the agencies/departments themselves.
Not to mention the backgrounds and loyalties of some of those within the government branches that most certainly could facilitate any number of things and outcomes.
You also rather naively dismiss the real threat of bribery, and political and physical death and financial ruin after years of "hard work" that are at stake.
Perhaps you might do well to brush up on the machinations of government and history before you involve yourself in a 9-11 conspiracy discussion.
A good place to start would be what some of the whistle blowers and those in the fields pertinent to government and the 9-11 attacks have said regarding their objections to the the official version of events, followed by the objections of credible people in science and physics pertaining to the destruction of the WTC buildings.
There are many who do not have some sort of dependence on government, financially or otherwise.
Skipping all the way to the who, why, and how is going to make you ignore the very first and important reason there was almost immediate doubt the truth was being told in the first place.
Not knowing those 3 parts does not in anyway dismiss the physics and science behind the 9-11 events, or the improbability of the NIST report being accurate, or scientifically sound..

The reason there was "immediate doubt" about the truth of the official 9/11 story is the same reason there was "immediate doubt" about Sandy Hook ... slimy CTs who know they can get silly CTs like you to bite on any story they author no matter how silly. For them there is fame and some coin and for you there's the mess you make in your pants every time you read one of their fictions. You are forced to reject things like the NIST findings because they interfere with your CT religious beliefs.

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) and their rapid rate of decent through the path of most resistance did not coincide with them being made of steel, and this unprecedented event (their actual destruction) not only occurring once, but twice, and then a 3rd massive building "collapsing" without being the target of one of the coke sniffing, freedumbs hating, devout Muslim jihadists plane.

Official state conspiracy theorists like yourself seemingly have no ability or desire to look at this subject with any objectivity, and dismiss the states conspiracy theory's lack of credible proof and evidence, depending instead on an adherence of strict loyalty to their authoritative figures and agencies, despite historical precedence of numerous lies.
You depend on reports that rely on unsound data and calculations, and just plain ole bullshit.
Hell it took a regular citizen to point the fact that WTC 7 experienced a period of freefall for the first 8 stories.
The dogmatic fanatical beliefs that official conspiracy theorists like you have is most likely based on fear and cowardice, that the realization of what is happened and continues in the nation, is too overwhelming and too much to accept and comprehend.
It is you that is afraid of shitting yourself, so you deny even the mere existence of a possibility of the CT's that you fear so much.

BTW, the NIST report has been taken into account, and it actually is at the center of many points of the objections, since you bring it up care to explain why they refuse to release their computer simulation data so that others in the scientific community can replicate the outcomes? I doubt you will, so run along now, unless you wish to debate that which might cause you to soil yourself.

There is but one official account of 9/11 which was painstakingly prepared by credible people and while it may be incomplete or otherwise flawed - it was, after all prepared by people - there is no evidence that they conspired to "fix" the results.
On the other hand we have numerous, often conflicting CTs which resulted in pissing matches by the authors who charge each other with various crimes and misdemeanors including disinformation and being a tool of the gov't. Their disagreements boil down to "my CT is factual and yours is bogus" which elicits the response "no, your CT is bogus and mine is factual." Their agenda? Fame and some coin. Check out the college dropout slackers who produced two films (Loose Change) on the subject and their sudden riches and noteriety. You've been duped.

 

[paulitician]

Your specialty, G.

Ah i see, all you got is stale one-liner insults. We get it. You're lame.

you noticed it as well huh? yeah people who debate this troll they find out immediatly whenever he is cornered and has no answers,all he can do is throw pitiful one liners.

He did that EVERYTIME I asked him to debunk the facts in that 5 minute video on that thread of yours.Im glad Im not the only one that noticed that about him,that all he can do is throw pathetic one liners when the troll is cornered.

I wondered if anybody else around here noticed thats how he debates all the time when he is cornered.


good thing they rushed to destroy the crime scene...

yep and these agents can only fling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are._

Sock. Predictable and smug. Nothing new or original.

 

[SAYIT]

Ah i see, all you got is stale one-liner insults. We get it. You're lame.

you noticed it as well huh? yeah people who debate this troll they find out immediatly whenever he is cornered and has no answers,all he can do is throw pitiful one liners.

He did that EVERYTIME I asked him to debunk the facts in that 5 minute video on that thread of yours.Im glad Im not the only one that noticed that about him,that all he can do is throw pathetic one liners when the troll is cornered.

I wondered if anybody else around here noticed thats how he debates all the time when he is cornered.


good thing they rushed to destroy the crime scene...

yep and these agents can only fling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are._

Sock. Predictable and smug. Nothing new or original.

You're projecting, Princess. Nothing is more smug and stale than your responses. Carry on.

 

[paulitician]

you noticed it as well huh? yeah people who debate this troll they find out immediatly whenever he is cornered and has no answers,all he can do is throw pitiful one liners.

He did that EVERYTIME I asked him to debunk the facts in that 5 minute video on that thread of yours.Im glad Im not the only one that noticed that about him,that all he can do is throw pathetic one liners when the troll is cornered.

I wondered if anybody else around here noticed thats how he debates all the time when he is cornered.


good thing they rushed to destroy the crime scene...

yep and these agents can only fling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are._

Sock. Predictable and smug. Nothing new or original.

You're projecting, Princess. Nothing is more smug and stale than your responses. Carry on.

Sure Sock, whatever you say.

 

[daws101]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley
Likewise you continue to run away whenever you are given the chance to show us all the 'facts' that make you cling to such outrageous BS as the NIST report and the OCT narrative.
You can not address with any reasonable intelligence the fact that physics provide different results that are counter to your dogmatic belief, that fire destroyed 3 massive hirises.
You have never posted anything in defense of the NIST report, that can't be destroyed by real world science or physics and, even NIST's own words and report.
You just just cling to the same ole tactics of diversion and BS when faced with having to stand by your beliefs, that are constructed on failed unprovable "evidence" that has been posted numerous times, but that you continuously ignore. You are on USMB conspiracy section, discussing the 9-11 attacks, but you refuse to discuss the issue in any rational intelligent manner...so why do you bother?

But then.. I suppose...."It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Not a one ever with any substance. You may have posted an excerpt of the NIST report, but only to avoid answering with any of your thoughts.

My POV is that the NIST report is BS. I point out where in detail, and you point out in rebuttal....Nothing as usual.


You being in the conspiracy section do not even debate anything. You may disagree with things, but run away like a little ***** yapping about how you already debated or answered a post or topic when in fact you do not.


At least I don't post little pics and stupid one liners and call it a debate or a response to a post like you have always done. While I include links and explain to you by reasoning behind my belief on a topic, you post some BS about CT's or another link to a report that has already been shown to be BS, or you just give up and say you or someone else already provided answer, which a post history search will show is BS.
You're just a ***** who uses excuses to avoid debating and defending your position on posted topics.

quote mining out of context phrases by authors you've never read or if you did you've misinterpreted them due to willful ignorance or sheer stupidity

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley
Truth hurts huh?

yes it hurts you a lot. btw I see no difference betweenosting an excerpt of the NIST report and my own thoughts since they are the same facts.
your own so called thoughts are nothing more then an ignorant mix of fantasy pseudoscience and yammering.


"quote mining out of context phrases by authors you've never read or if you did you've misinterpreted them due to willful ignorance or sheer stupidity"-me
your lack of an answer to this statement can only mean you never have!

 

[daws101]

Sock. Predictable and smug. Nothing new or original.

You're projecting, Princess. Nothing is more smug and stale than your responses. Carry on.

Sure Sock, whatever you say.

so when ,if ever are you going to answer the living in mom's basement and inflatable girlfriend question?

 

[Mr. Jones]

The reason there was "immediate doubt" about the truth of the official 9/11 story is the same reason there was "immediate doubt" about Sandy Hook ... slimy CTs who know they can get silly CTs like you to bite on any story they author no matter how silly. For them there is fame and some coin and for you there's the mess you make in your pants every time you read one of their fictions. You are forced to reject things like the NIST findings because they interfere with your CT religious beliefs.

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) ...

Once more for the terminally stupid. There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode. Give it up, Princess ... even your sources have.

Haven't seen pictures or videos of the actual events have you? See the problem with ignorant ***** like you is, the state conspiracy theory dogma whose nuts you cling to, has absolutely no evidence or proof that the WTC buildings could have imploded/collapsed by fire/kerosene. There are laws within physics that dictate how fast an object will travel through air as opposed through mass.
There are also properties of steel and the temperature it must be heated to, for durations of time before it gives way like spaghetti noodles. The best hypothesis that explains their demise is not due to fires and office combustibles.
If you had done the slightest bit of research and study into what the real objection to the OCT are, you would have known this, and not come on here and make an ass out of yourself by showing just how out of touch with the topic you are.
Better get your supervisor to help you on this one...princess

 

[GuyPinestra]

The reason there was "immediate doubt" about the truth of the official 9/11 story is the same reason there was "immediate doubt" about Sandy Hook ... slimy CTs who know they can get silly CTs like you to bite on any story they author no matter how silly. For them there is fame and some coin and for you there's the mess you make in your pants every time you read one of their fictions. You are forced to reject things like the NIST findings because they interfere with your CT religious beliefs.

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) ...

There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode.

You mean other than the fact that that is EXACTLY what they DID?? Explode?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Not a one ever with any substance. You may have posted an excerpt of the NIST report, but only to avoid answering with any of your thoughts.

My POV is that the NIST report is BS. I point out where in detail, and you point out in rebuttal....Nothing as usual.


You being in the conspiracy section do not even debate anything. You may disagree with things, but run away like a little ***** yapping about how you already debated or answered a post or topic when in fact you do not.


At least I don't post little pics and stupid one liners and call it a debate or a response to a post like you have always done. While I include links and explain to you by reasoning behind my belief on a topic, you post some BS about CT's or another link to a report that has already been shown to be BS, or you just give up and say you or someone else already provided answer, which a post history search will show is BS.
You're just a ***** who uses excuses to avoid debating and defending your position on posted topics.


"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley
Truth hurts huh?

yes it hurts you a lot. btw I see no difference betweenosting an excerpt of the NIST report and my own thoughts since they are the same facts.
your own so called thoughts are nothing more then an ignorant mix of fantasy pseudoscience and yammering.


"quote mining out of context phrases by authors you've never read or if you did you've misinterpreted them due to willful ignorance or sheer stupidity"-me
your lack of an answer to this statement can only mean you never have!

So you quote the NIST report as a source of rebuttal even though it is the NIST report that is the source of contention in the topic....brilliant...You couldn't buy a thought you're so stupid

 

[Mr. Jones]

facts! he don't need no stinkin' facts!

Maybe you'd like to post the facts that you rely on that solidifies your belief in the "official conspiracy theory" and the narrative you were told about 9-11 is "factually" sound?


There is no evidence that the temps required to destroy the WTC buildings were ever achieved, we know this, as well as the NIST tests being a failure, still they claim the destruction as being blamed on fires primarily.
Yet we witness comments by Dawgshit such as...this when a credible objection is made that the NIST narrative is proven by physics, science, and calculations, AND NIST's own failure to prove their guess is anywhere close to being true and correct.

false declarative no evidence.

Dipshit Dawgshit and his ilk are adhereing to "evidence" provided by NIST that has been shown and proven to be flawed, failed, unsound, and blatent lies. These people don't give a shit what anyone else says despite the fact that they can be pointed to the credible calculations, formulas, and information that shows the NIST and the OCT to be nothing more then BS.

The NIST report was laboriously prepared by credible scientists. Your prob and that of the loony CT world is it doen't conform to your lunacy. Carry on, Princess.

And just what is it that makes them (NIST) so credible, in your opinion...? And no, the problem we have with their sham "report" is not that it doesn't conform to any logical conspiracy theory at all.. it doesn't even conform to the one YOU cling to you ******* idiot!
Not only does it NOT fit their own version but it does not conform to known science, and the laws of physics, nor takes into consideration the properties of steel, fires, and heat dissipation among other important aspects, including some within the scientific community.

Now are you able to understand what the problem credible non partisan people in the science, and physics fields have with your conspiracy theory, or do you need to take a time out and go ask for some help?
See little one, once you actually investigate such matters you will know just how bad the NIST fucked up in their less then credible reports.
I'll give you time to study...run along now poobut...questions are coming..

 

[SFC Ollie]

Notice how they ignore the pictorial and video evidence of the buildings beginning to sag......

And how long did it take for them to fall? anywhere near free fall or closer to twice as long? Fact people pure fact....

 

[Mr. Jones]

The reason there was "immediate doubt" about the truth of the official 9/11 story is the same reason there was "immediate doubt" about Sandy Hook ... slimy CTs who know they can get silly CTs like you to bite on any story they author no matter how silly. For them there is fame and some coin and for you there's the mess you make in your pants every time you read one of their fictions. You are forced to reject things like the NIST findings because they interfere with your CT religious beliefs.

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) ...

Once more for the terminally stupid. There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode. Give it up, Princess ... even your sources have.

Why isn't there evidence of explosions?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Notice how they ignore the pictorial and video evidence of the buildings beginning to sag......

And how long did it take for them to fall? anywhere near free fall or closer to twice as long? Fact people pure fact....

We don't ignore anything, hell I don't even ignore you despite you acting like your Alzheimer's is progressing along.

Have you taken the time to notice the exploding nature of the buildings and how tons of steel mass was ejected hundreds of feet away? Explain that to us... what force did that?

 

[SFC Ollie]

So please go ahead and tell us what was causing the towers to pull in the way they were........

 

[Mr. Jones]

So please go ahead and tell us what was causing the towers to pull in the way they were........

Tell us what force caused the tons of massive steel components to be ejected hundreds of feet away, even imbedding into other buildings?
Tell us why you think the fires got hot enough when even NIST did not and could not prove it?
Why did they fall right through the path of most resistance?
Why was there only "minimal resistance" according to NIST?

Don't you have capability to look at this and think for yourself?
The questions above are what you should be asking, and finding answers for.

 

[SFC Ollie]

SO you don't have an answer to what we could all see. Got it...........

 

[SAYIT]

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) ...

Once more for the terminally stupid: There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode.

You mean other than the fact that that is EXACTLY what they DID?? Explode?

They did not explode ... they collapsed.
Demo explosions occur in a carefully orchestrated sequence and the Towers would have required many such large, sequential explosions . No evidence of demo rigging was found and the NIST concluded the cause of the explosions was the fire, not vice versa. There were no sequential explosions, no proof that the NIST report was tainted and none that its authors were incompetent. You have only "gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder" (Crimson Tide) and the assurance of like-minded CTs who believe in the same pseudoscience you do and share your total distrust of America and Americans.

 

[SAYIT]

No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) ...

Once more for the terminally stupid. There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode. Give it up, Princess ... even your sources have.

Haven't seen pictures or videos of the actual events have you? See the problem with ignorant ***** like you is, the state conspiracy theory dogma whose nuts you cling to, has absolutely no evidence or proof that the WTC buildings could have imploded/collapsed by fire/kerosene. There are laws within physics that dictate how fast an object will travel through air as opposed through mass.
There are also properties of steel and the temperature it must be heated to, for durations of time before it gives way like spaghetti noodles. The best hypothesis that explains their demise is not due to fires and office combustibles.
If you had done the slightest bit of research and study into what the real objection to the OCT are, you would have known this, and not come on here and make an ass out of yourself by showing just how out of touch with the topic you are.
Better get your supervisor to help you on this one...princess

All that BS and not a lick of proof of the Towers having been rigged for demo or the massive sequential explosions necessary for a "controlled demo" of buildings of that size. If you had the intellectual capacity to separate the wheat from the chaff you wouldn't come here with your half-assed pseudoscience and innuendo in such a feeble attempt to deny the facts and make an ass of yourself by showing how out of touch with reality you are, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

yes it hurts you a lot. btw I see no difference betweenosting an excerpt of the NIST report and my own thoughts since they are the same facts.
your own so called thoughts are nothing more then an ignorant mix of fantasy pseudoscience and yammering.

"quote mining out of context phrases by authors you've never read or if you did you've misinterpreted them due to willful ignorance or sheer stupidity"-me
your lack of an answer to this statement can only mean you never have!

So you quote the NIST report as a source of rebuttal even though it is the NIST report that is the source of contention in the topic....brilliant...You couldn't buy a thought you're so stupid

Those who live in glass houses...
Your CT World pseudoscience does not trump the NIST report and you have proven neither that the report's authors were incompetent nor that they were dishonest.
In other words, you've got NUTTIN'.