Barbara Olsen 9/11 phone calls 0 minutes.

[CurveLight]

You can't win this debate until you give us who, how, and most importantly WHY!

At this point, you twufers have miserably FAILED!

why is simple to have a pretext for the invasion of two soverign nations
operation northwoods put into action

Ah but still then the question would remain, WHY? What does the USA have to gain from Afghanistan? And Iraq has some Oil we get 4% of our imported oil from them Both before and after the war. That would be just over 1% of the oil we use everyday. Not worth going to war for, So again, WHY?

Wtf? I'm just now beginning to realize how ******* ignorant you guys are. What would the US have to gain? Are. You. *******. Serious?

 

[CurveLight]

Operation Northwoods is bullshit. http://http//web.archive.org/web/20040722205316/www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html -- SORRY, but I think it's a busted link --

But Troofers will buy ANYTHING if it seems sordid enough and involves doubting the integrity of all things: "American Government."

Thank you! Thank you! No, really, THANK YOU! Why? Because you just provided another excellent example of how badly OCTAs agendas prevent them from seeing basic facts. This link contains the actual ******* official declassified documents for the operation:

"First coming to light in the year 2000 through a Freedom of Information Act request, key excerpts from the Operation Northwoods documents are provided below."

15 pages of declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff
documents on Operation Northwoods
as posted on the National Security Archive
of George Washington University:

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962


"The Operation Northwoods documents were approved in writing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the top generals of each branch of the US armed forces – and submitted to the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara."
Operation Northwoods

What were your reasons for claiming it wasn't true?

1. A dead link.

2. The phrase "off on a holiday."


You just got pwned. Big. Time.

 

[SFC Ollie]

this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned

Your gentleman and scholar is a nutcase who believes that Pearl Harbor was an inside job. He has zero credibility, he ignores more fact than you and your friends.

 

[SFC Ollie]

this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned

that dumbfuck, when shown by the history channel that thermite would NOT cut through even a small vertical box beam, he starts with the super thermite paint bullshit
hes a ******* delusional asswipe like YOU

exactly the history Chanel experiment was designed to fail using standard thermite..I posted patients for super thermite for cutting and demo and your asswipe response was to hi-lite the date because the patent was issued 4 years after 9/11..and as the experiment here shows super thermite is indeed a reality that you are simple in denial of

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8490zVpDBs&feature=related[/ame]

God, talk about scripted and bad acting, is this a new comedy series?

 

[CurveLight]

this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned

Your gentleman and scholar is a nutcase who believes that Pearl Harbor was an inside job. He has zero credibility, he ignores more fact than you and your friends.

He claims it wasn't really Japan that attacked?

 

[CurveLight]

Here's a link to a different forum. It's so ******* funny how so many complete ass licking dog shit dripping diaper wrapped nationalists uses the "off on a Holiday"phrase as a reason to believe Northwoods is a hoax.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62969

Keep in mind, the same camp that claims ON was a hoax fully believes the Bush Admin about 9E. That's ******* funny.

 

[Liability]

Let us make this a bit more stark and clear for these Troofers to answer.

The records might be interpreted as suggesting that the phone call from Barbara to Ted never happened (like, for example, the zero seconds duration references)

Contrasted with that, however, is the testimony (FBI interview) of Ted where he said he had spoken with his wife at that time prior to the loss of that airliner.

The Troofers have suggested that somebody may have "duped" Ted.

How the **** did they do that?

Why would they have done that AT THAT TIME?

Is it more logical to believe that the records are clear and right and that Ted either DIDN'T have any such conversation or that he got "duped" somehow

OR is it more logical to believe that the records are somehow unclear and/or misleading AND that Ted DID have a conversation with his own wife?

Holy shit you truly are mentally handicapped! They claim he was duped to support the false flag theory. So why would someone dupe ted "at that time?" Because if duping him was designed as part of a false flag op then it would have been really ******* stupid to call and pretend to be his wife on a hijacked plane the day before 9/11.


It's also a ******* classic OCTA move to ignore the evidence and claim the records are wrong. This is why you guys are so ******* pathetic.

The English language is RICH in words. It's a GREAT language. But even so, there are no words sufficient to describe just how amazingly stupid you are.

These conspirators you fantasize about (with not one shred of evidence as support) not only masterminded and conducted mass murder and treason, but have kept it all so secret that none of the conspirators have broken ranks. That in itself is so incredible as to be beyond words. But it gets worse.

In your hyperventilating imagination, the conspiracy was SOOOOOO motherfucking detailed that they even had the presence of mind to fake a telephone call from Barbara Olson to the Solicitor General AS the conspiracy was underway!

One wonders how the conspirators knew that Barbara would be on one of those jets that morning! How long in advance did they know? What amazing skillz!

You ******* Troofers are sickening, one and all.

 

[DiveCon]

it appeared to be capable of doing so this was only the most simplistic experiment but the according to NIST buildings can fall from fire alone and it clearly burned hot enough to weaken steel by 90 % so if beams were burning with that intensity in precise critical areas would not only 10% of the explosives be required to insure collapse ?

if it was capable of doing so, WHY THE **** DIDNT THEY SHOW IT?

and stop lying about buildings falling from fire alone
NIST DID NOT SAY THAT

NIST didn't say fires did it? Cows on jupiter are laughing! How in the **** is it possible OCTAs are the most vocal and at the same time the most incredibly ignorant about that day? Hell, being the least informed is probably exactly why they do accept it.

because they didnt say FIRES ALONE you dumbfuck

 

[DiveCon]

No diveconmoron building fires are the official collapse theory and for good reasons if the structural damage was factored into the computer model a symmetrical collapse was impossible to simulate so it became not a factor because it did not fit...that's called NIST science

following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.
Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,”

computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST



Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.” NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

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.

so this is the sole reason given for rejection of the controlled demolition theory...what if the critical column was treated with thermite paint and super heated how much of an explosion would it take then ? and there were indeed massive explosions witnessed..so if it can be done at a lower decibel level it must then become a more viable theory..

DOES NOT SAY NO EFFECT

dumbfuck

 

[DiveCon]

this man is a gentlemen and a scholar and`the information presented is well researched and the questions raised reasoned

that dumbfuck, when shown by the history channel that thermite would NOT cut through even a small vertical box beam, he starts with the super thermite paint bullshit
hes a ******* delusional asswipe like YOU

The history channel? Rotfl! Why not cite an equally laughable source on 9/11 like popular mechanics?

neither of them are as laughable as you dumbfucking morons

 

[CurveLight]

Let us make this a bit more stark and clear for these Troofers to answer.

The records might be interpreted as suggesting that the phone call from Barbara to Ted never happened (like, for example, the zero seconds duration references)

Contrasted with that, however, is the testimony (FBI interview) of Ted where he said he had spoken with his wife at that time prior to the loss of that airliner.

The Troofers have suggested that somebody may have "duped" Ted.

How the **** did they do that?

Why would they have done that AT THAT TIME?

Is it more logical to believe that the records are clear and right and that Ted either DIDN'T have any such conversation or that he got "duped" somehow

OR is it more logical to believe that the records are somehow unclear and/or misleading AND that Ted DID have a conversation with his own wife?

Holy shit you truly are mentally handicapped! They claim he was duped to support the false flag theory. So why would someone dupe ted "at that time?" Because if duping him was designed as part of a false flag op then it would have been really ******* stupid to call and pretend to be his wife on a hijacked plane the day before 9/11.


It's also a ******* classic OCTA move to ignore the evidence and claim the records are wrong. This is why you guys are so ******* pathetic.

The English language is RICH in words. It's a GREAT language. But even so, there are no words sufficient to describe just how amazingly stupid you are.

These conspirators you fantasize about (with not one shred of evidence as support) not only masterminded and conducted mass murder and treason, but have kept it all so secret that none of the conspirators have broken ranks. That in itself is so incredible as to be beyond words. But it gets worse.

In your hyperventilating imagination, the conspiracy was SOOOOOO motherfucking detailed that they even had the presence of mind to fake a telephone call from Barbara Olson to the Solicitor General AS the conspiracy was underway!

One wonders how the conspirators knew that Barbara would be on one of those jets that morning! How long in advance did they know? What amazing skillz!

You ******* Troofers are sickening, one and all.

I never claimed it was a false flag op but only answered your question as to why would a call be duped. You try to laugh that off but you once again show how ******* ignorant you are. Go back and look at the media reports beginning the morning of 9E. You will see Olson's report about the phone call from his wife was the primary source cited saying 77 was hijacked. IF it was a false flag op it would make sense the conspirators would dupe a call and think about it some more.....he was the Solicitor General of the US.

Know what's so ******* funny? You have no problem accepting the conspiracy theory that says 9E was executed by a ******* street gang but you find it impossible to even consider looking at how it could have been done by a different group with more resources, more power, and much much much more control over our defense systems.

Tell us again how Northwoods was a hoax? Lol.......that's why you have no credibility. You're ******* clueless and PRETEND to be informed when we have solid proof you are ******* ignorant.

 

[CurveLight]

if it was capable of doing so, WHY THE **** DIDNT THEY SHOW IT?

and stop lying about buildings falling from fire alone
NIST DID NOT SAY THAT

NIST didn't say fires did it? Cows on jupiter are laughing! How in the **** is it possible OCTAs are the most vocal and at the same time the most incredibly ignorant about that day? Hell, being the least informed is probably exactly why they do accept it.

because they didnt say FIRES ALONE you dumbfuck

What the **** is wrong with you? Even when NIST says it's the first time fire is known to have caused the collapse you try to say it wasn't? ******* classic OCTA!

 

[Liability]

NIST didn't say fires did it? Cows on jupiter are laughing! How in the **** is it possible OCTAs are the most vocal and at the same time the most incredibly ignorant about that day? Hell, being the least informed is probably exactly why they do accept it.

because they didnt say FIRES ALONE you dumbfuck

What the **** is wrong with you? Even when NIST says it's the first time fire is known to have caused the collapse you try to say it wasn't? ******* classic OCTA!

The big HOLE (about twenty stories tall) in Bldg 7 TOGETHER with the FIRES might have had SOMETHING to do with the collapse of BLDG 7.

As for the collapse of the Twin TOWERS, in addition to the massive infernos, the damage to the physical structures of the buildings at the points of impact and the fact taht no water was able to be put to the fires -- that might have led to the intial collapse above the points of impact which culminated in the complete collapse of those Towers....

The FACT, however, remains. Nobody said, anywhere, that it was the fires ALONE that did those Towers in. Is there some reason you are incapable of just admitting this?

 

[CurveLight]

because they didnt say FIRES ALONE you dumbfuck

What the **** is wrong with you? Even when NIST says it's the first time fire is known to have caused the collapse you try to say it wasn't? ******* classic OCTA!

The big HOLE (about twenty stories tall) in Bldg 7 TOGETHER with the FIRES might have had SOMETHING to do with the collapse of BLDG 7.

As for the collapse of the Twin TOWERS, in addition to the massive infernos, the damage to the physical structures of the buildings at the points of impact and the fact taht no water was able to be put to the fires -- that might have led to the intial collapse above the points of impact which culminated in the complete collapse of those Towers....

The FACT, however, remains. Nobody said, anywhere, that it was the fires ALONE that did those Towers in. Is there some reason you are incapable of just admitting this?

Aren't you the whiny ***** that tried to claim Operation Northwoods was bullshit because you claimed the phrase "off on a holiday" was enough evidence to prove it wasn't true? You gotta be super ******* retarded to believe you are worthy of dialogue. Did you even admit you got TOTALLY PWNED? Of course not. Only decent and honest people admit it when they **** up.

 

[Liability]

What the **** is wrong with you? Even when NIST says it's the first time fire is known to have caused the collapse you try to say it wasn't? ******* classic OCTA!

The big HOLE (about twenty stories tall) in Bldg 7 TOGETHER with the FIRES might have had SOMETHING to do with the collapse of BLDG 7.

As for the collapse of the Twin TOWERS, in addition to the massive infernos, the damage to the physical structures of the buildings at the points of impact and the fact taht no water was able to be put to the fires -- that might have led to the intial collapse above the points of impact which culminated in the complete collapse of those Towers....

The FACT, however, remains. Nobody said, anywhere, that it was the fires ALONE that did those Towers in. Is there some reason you are incapable of just admitting this?

Aren't you the whiny ***** that tried to claim Operation Northwoods was bullshit because you claimed the phrase "off on a holiday" was enough evidence to prove it wasn't true? You gotta be super ******* retarded to believe you are worthy of dialogue. Did you even admit you got TOTALLY PWNED? Of course not. Only decent and honest people admit it when they **** up.

I didn't GET pwnd and certainly not by anything your pety little retarded mind came up with, you ***** fucktard.

There is a difference (one an asshole such as you is unlikely to ever grasp) between claiming you are right (as you always do) and BEING right (which you almost never are).

Operation Northwoods is a bogus piece of shit. Someday, with luck, Bamford might even own up.

But nice way to dodge the POINT of what I had previously posted. Clever girl, ya slimey fucktard.

 

[CurveLight]

The big HOLE (about twenty stories tall) in Bldg 7 TOGETHER with the FIRES might have had SOMETHING to do with the collapse of BLDG 7.

As for the collapse of the Twin TOWERS, in addition to the massive infernos, the damage to the physical structures of the buildings at the points of impact and the fact taht no water was able to be put to the fires -- that might have led to the intial collapse above the points of impact which culminated in the complete collapse of those Towers....

The FACT, however, remains. Nobody said, anywhere, that it was the fires ALONE that did those Towers in. Is there some reason you are incapable of just admitting this?

Aren't you the whiny ***** that tried to claim Operation Northwoods was bullshit because you claimed the phrase "off on a holiday" was enough evidence to prove it wasn't true? You gotta be super ******* retarded to believe you are worthy of dialogue. Did you even admit you got TOTALLY PWNED? Of course not. Only decent and honest people admit it when they **** up.

I didn't GET pwnd and certainly not by anything your pety little retarded mind came up with, you ***** fucktard.

There is a difference (one an asshole such as you is unlikely to ever grasp) between claiming you are right (as you always do) and BEING right (which you almost never are).

Operation Northwoods is a bogus piece of shit. Someday, with luck, Bamford might even own up.

But nice way to dodge the POINT of what I had previously posted. Clever girl, ya slimey fucktard.

Well let's look at this for evidence from both sides.

Evidence it is bogus:

Some random queen on a message board says it is bogus.


Evidence it is genuine:


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962

Gee...tough call.

This just proves shit stains like you don't give a **** about honesty.

 

[Liability]

Aren't you the whiny ***** that tried to claim Operation Northwoods was bullshit because you claimed the phrase "off on a holiday" was enough evidence to prove it wasn't true? You gotta be super ******* retarded to believe you are worthy of dialogue. Did you even admit you got TOTALLY PWNED? Of course not. Only decent and honest people admit it when they **** up.

I didn't GET pwnd and certainly not by anything your pety little retarded mind came up with, you ***** fucktard.

There is a difference (one an asshole such as you is unlikely to ever grasp) between claiming you are right (as you always do) and BEING right (which you almost never are).

Operation Northwoods is a bogus piece of shit. Someday, with luck, Bamford might even own up.

But nice way to dodge the POINT of what I had previously posted. Clever girl, ya slimey fucktard.

Well let's look at this for evidence from both sides.

Evidence it is bogus:

Some random queen on a message board says it is bogus.


Evidence it is genuine:


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962

Gee...tough call.

This just proves shit stains like you don't give a **** about honesty.

Hey fucktard:

Scenario: a bunch of shit lying in file cabinets in the Pentagon get unsealed and released as per a FOIL request and a document review. Inserted into the shit is a fraudulent document. Those folks unsealing and declassifying and releasing and disseminating the shit in the file cabinets may not even be aware that some person or persons conspired together to plant the bogus document in with all the other genuine documents.

Did that happen? I dunno. I wasn't there that day. BUT there is at least one great clue: The document on its face seems to provide a hint that it is bogus. Happy holiday!

Further evidence that mindless shitstains such as you and the other Troofers don't give a rat's ass about such things. If a document even SEEMS to put the US in a bad light and if it supports in ANY way the fantasy conspiracy shit you love to espouse, then it's GREAT and GENUINE and that's all she wrote.

You fucktard shitstain asslickers are all the same.

 

[eots]

No diveconmoron building fires are the official collapse theory and for good reasons if the structural damage was factored into the computer model a symmetrical collapse was impossible to simulate so it became not a factor because it did not fit...that's called NIST science

following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.
Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,”

computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST



Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.” NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

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.

so this is the sole reason given for rejection of the controlled demolition theory...what if the critical column was treated with thermite paint and super heated how much of an explosion would it take then ? and there were indeed massive explosions witnessed..so if it can be done at a lower decibel level it must then become a more viable theory..

DOES NOT SAY NO EFFECT

dumbfuck

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..

 

[Fizz]

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..

....and your proof of explosives is where, again??

 

[Liability]

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..

....and your proof of explosives is where, again??

That would be


nowhere.