Barbara Olsen 9/11 phone calls 0 minutes.

[CurveLight]

bent tight thinks that licking a ***** is a negative thing.

He must prefer to suck dick!

It is impossible for you to be honest eh? I clearly said "mouse ***** licking...."

You will ignore that just like you will ignore I totally ******* exposed how you worship one of the craziest twoofers out there. You couldn't be any more pathetic.....oops. That's not true. Everyday you get more pathetic. Take your fat ass and do something for once instead of being such a ******* sloth.

OH. Ok. Good point. I see the subtlety of it now. Quite clear. Yes.

You wish to suck MOUSE dick.

Good job on totally ignoring how you got completely pwned on the Northwoods claims. Yeah, you won't address the facts because you are nothing but a parasite.

 

[DiveCon]

All the Joint Chiefs approved of the plan as well. ON proves a couple of points but they would require dialogue above your ability to be honest. I do agree the existence of the ON documents do not prove 9E was a false flag but only a blind ******* mouse ***** licking reject would look at 9E and ON and say there is no comparison.

wrong again
only that would say there IS a connection

I didn't say there was a connection you ******* idiot. You are forever complaining people don't know how to read then you do this? It's just like how you ignored NIST saying the wtc was the first known incident of fire causing the total collapse of high rise buildings. Your the Mayor of Loserville. If you ever bring your punk ass to Boston send me a PM so I can buy you a pint.

did i say YOU did, fucktard?
shit, learn to ******* READ asswipe

 

[DiveCon]

lol ...the computer model is the proof offered by and damage is not a factor in the collapse model..that's why they made the statement ..it was the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fire..idiotboy

but not due to "FIRE ALONE" as you idiot asswipes keep saying

now whos the dumbfuck?
YOU

NIST clearly says fire was the main cause so your "Not fire alone" strawman needs to be put to bed you lying ****.

EOTS keeps saying they said FIRE ALONE
so YOU need to take it up with HIM

learn to READ FUCKTARD

 

[Liability]

It is impossible for you to be honest eh? I clearly said "mouse ***** licking...."

You will ignore that just like you will ignore I totally ******* exposed how you worship one of the craziest twoofers out there. You couldn't be any more pathetic.....oops. That's not true. Everyday you get more pathetic. Take your fat ass and do something for once instead of being such a ******* sloth.

OH. Ok. Good point. I see the subtlety of it now. Quite clear. Yes.

You wish to suck MOUSE dick.

Good job on totally ignoring how you got completely pwned on the Northwoods claims. Yeah, you won't address the facts because you are nothing but a parasite.

I have repeatedly addressed the "facts.," you ******* imbecile.

You buy it. That doesn't make it a legit document.

Others (who actually have a brain) also buy it. That too doesn't make it a legit document.

I don't buy it. Of course that doesn't make it an illegitimate document.

But that "on holiday" language suggests that it was authored in the Pentagon by someon other than an American. Possible? Sure. Likely? I don't believe so.

And why do you like to suck mouse dick, anyway, you ******* skell pervert ************?

 

[eots]

that is correct fire was the cause of the collapse the only role the damage played in the collapse scenario was it was credited for starting the fires period...if the damage was factored in to the scenario a symmetrical collapse was not possible so it was therefore deemed insignificant to the collapse

 

[SFC Ollie]

dumbfuck,,,it goes on to say its the only building in history to collapse due to fire ..the little effect line is only because it is considered to cause of the fire nothing more...A dumbfuck is someone that accept the removing this damage from computer models to achieve a symmetrical collapse..

because the FIRE DID CAUSE IT

dumbfuck
had the building not had the fires it likely wouldnt have collapsed
but, the building damage PLUS the fires is what made it possible TO collapse
NIST NEVER claims the building damage didnt contribute to the collapse and in fact, the building damage(started the fires) is what CAUSED the collapes due to the FIRES being started by it

lol ...the computer model is the proof offered by and damage is not a factor in the collapse model..that's why they made the statement ..it was the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fire..idiotboy

Fact is Dumbass that the NIST did do models with the debris damage and without. There really wasn't a lot of difference in the results.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

 

[DiveCon]

because the FIRE DID CAUSE IT

dumbfuck
had the building not had the fires it likely wouldnt have collapsed
but, the building damage PLUS the fires is what made it possible TO collapse
NIST NEVER claims the building damage didnt contribute to the collapse and in fact, the building damage(started the fires) is what CAUSED the collapes due to the FIRES being started by it

lol ...the computer model is the proof offered by and damage is not a factor in the collapse model..that's why they made the statement ..it was the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fire..idiotboy

Fact is Dumbass that the NIST did do models with the debris damage and without. There really wasn't a lot of difference in the results.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

actually, from the 2 videos, there was a dramatic difference without the structural damage

 

[SFC Ollie]

lol ...the computer model is the proof offered by and damage is not a factor in the collapse model..that's why they made the statement ..it was the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fire..idiotboy

Fact is Dumbass that the NIST did do models with the debris damage and without. There really wasn't a lot of difference in the results.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

actually, from the 2 videos, there was a dramatic difference without the structural damage

But the results are the same. The Building was coming down either way.

 

[DiveCon]

Fact is Dumbass that the NIST did do models with the debris damage and without. There really wasn't a lot of difference in the results.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

actually, from the 2 videos, there was a dramatic difference without the structural damage

But the results are the same. The Building was coming down either way.

but without the structural damage it fell differently
so clearly the structural damage played a role in the collapse even if it wouldnt have mattered in the long run
the building would still have collapsed

 

[Fizz]

wheres the proof of explosives? where is the proof that something else brought down the building other than fires?

the building was on fire. that can be proven. if you are going to say that something else brought the building down then SHOW PROOF!!!

(why is this in the barbara olsen thread?)

 

[SFC Ollie]

wheres the proof of explosives? where is the proof that something else brought down the building other than fires?

the building was on fire. that can be proven. if you are going to say that something else brought the building down then SHOW PROOF!!!

You know they can't, why do you keep beating yourself up trying to get an honest answer form any of them?

 

[eots]

The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory and in the symmetrical and rapid collapse of wtc 7

 

[DiveCon]

The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory and in the symmetrical and rapid collapse of wtc 7

i'd welcome a new investigation if i knew it would get your ilk to STFU, but since i know it wont, it would be nothing but an incredible waste of tax payer dollars and time
because any NEW investigation would still find what MOST sane people already know
the buildings were brought down by the terrorist attacks by flying loaded planes into them

 

[Fizz]

The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory and in the symmetrical and rapid collapse of wtc 7

so you are saying you have no proof.

got it. thanks.

 

[eots]

The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory and in the symmetrical and rapid collapse of wtc 7

i'd welcome a new investigation if i knew it would get your ilk to STFU, but since i know it wont, it would be nothing but an incredible waste of tax payer dollars and time
because any NEW investigation would still find what MOST sane people already know
the buildings were brought down by the terrorist attacks by flying loaded planes into them

no plane hit the wtc and damage played no significant role ... the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are theorized to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a theory with no actual proof that occurred and no evidence of the temperatures required for structural failure in their theorized collapse scenario

 

[elvis]

The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory and in the symmetrical and rapid collapse of wtc 7

i'd welcome a new investigation if i knew it would get your ilk to STFU, but since i know it wont, it would be nothing but an incredible waste of tax payer dollars and time
because any NEW investigation would still find what MOST sane people already know
the buildings were brought down by the terrorist attacks by flying loaded planes into them

no plane hit the wtc and damage played no significant role ... the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are theorized to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a theory with no actual proof that occurred and no evidence of the temperatures required for structural failure in their theorized collapse scenario

you are correct about the fireproofing being a only a theory. what about the structural damage done by the planes' forces COMBINED with the fires?

 

[DiveCon]

The perpetrators withhold the hard evidence and control the investigative authorities the hard physical proof can only come by forcing a re-investigation with full disclosure...the proof is however still there in the failure of NIST to prove its theory and in the symmetrical and rapid collapse of wtc 7

i'd welcome a new investigation if i knew it would get your ilk to STFU, but since i know it wont, it would be nothing but an incredible waste of tax payer dollars and time
because any NEW investigation would still find what MOST sane people already know
the buildings were brought down by the terrorist attacks by flying loaded planes into them

no plane hit the wtc and damage played no significant role ... the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are theorized to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a theory with no actual proof that occurred and no evidence of the temperatures required for structural failure in their theorized collapse scenario

REALLY?????

i know, you mean no plane hit WTC7, but WTC1 DID
you just keep showing how ******* STUPID you are

 

[Fizz]

the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are theorized to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a theory with no actual proof that occurred and no evidence of the temperatures required for structural failure in their theorized collapse scenario

the proof that the temperatures required were present is the fact that the buildings came down.

 

[eots]

i'd welcome a new investigation if i knew it would get your ilk to STFU, but since i know it wont, it would be nothing but an incredible waste of tax payer dollars and time
because any NEW investigation would still find what MOST sane people already know
the buildings were brought down by the terrorist attacks by flying loaded planes into them

no plane hit the wtc and damage played no significant role ... the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are theorized to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a theory with no actual proof that occurred and no evidence of the temperatures required for structural failure in their theorized collapse scenario

REALLY?????

i know, you mean no plane hit WTC7, but WTC1 DID
you just keep showing how ******* STUPID you are

No you are showing how delusional you are in your denial that according to NIST it matters not that a small portion of debris from wtc 1 fell on wtc 7 that if the fires had been ignited from any other cause the result would have been the same

 

[elvis]

no plane hit the wtc and damage played no significant role ... the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire and it the case of the wtc 1 AND 2 the plane strikes are theorized to have dislodged fire proofing...but this is simply a theory with no actual proof that occurred and no evidence of the temperatures required for structural failure in their theorized collapse scenario

REALLY?????

i know, you mean no plane hit WTC7, but WTC1 DID
you just keep showing how ******* STUPID you are

No you are showing how delusional you are in your denial that according to NIST it matters not that a small portion of debris from wtc 1 fell on wtc 7 that if the fires had been ignited from any other cause the result would have been the same

can you point out where NIST said your last sentence?