Choose your "Facts" about what happened on 911

[eots]

So the one major point out all these years of NIST "science "you support is the findings on how the building did not collapse due to explosives ...but you take issue with all the rest...lol..what a bunch of clowns

no, dipshit
i'm not going to go through and list them all
you are a fucking moron and all you get is MOCKING

You could not list them all..because you already did ..there are no more ..if you reject what you have the entire NIST theory false apart you simpleton

 

[Rat in the Hat]

It was that new silent explosions, guaranteed not to be picked up by recording devices...

Maybe they used Boris Badenov's formula for Hushaboom.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It was that new silent explosions, guaranteed not to be picked up by recording devices...

why do you lie and say there were no explosions heard and why do you pretend that there are not many types of explosives with varying noise levels and characteristics ???

Please provide the recorded explosions that you believe brought down the buildings.

We know all about the explosions that you claim were there. And yes we heard them. Secondary explosions. A refrigerator motor, a transformer, a generator, batteries of various sizes, just a few things that go boom in a fire. None of them as the buildings began to collapse and none of them in a pattern that would be the signature of a controlled demo. And if they were powerful enough to take out a steel beam then they would have been heard on the tapes.

I have not told any lies.
And you know that.

 

[eots]

Nist made its conclusion on the sound level required based on the loudest explosives possible with no consideration for sound dampening ..as well as the possibility of thermite being utilized...and none of this addresses trhe fact you claim nist failed to determine the correct collapse scenario

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nist made its conclusion on the sound level required based on the loudest explosives possible with no consideration for sound dampening ..as well as the possibility of thermite being utilized...and none of this addresses trhe fact you claim nist failed to determine the correct collapse scenario

So what you are saying is that you have no physical proof that NIST or anyone else is wrong.

 

[eots]

nist made its conclusion on the sound level required based on the loudest explosives possible with no consideration for sound dampening ..as well as the possibility of thermite being utilized...and none of this addresses trhe fact you claim nist failed to determine the correct collapse scenario

so what you are saying is that you have no physical proof that nist or anyone else is wrong.

no nobody has any physical proof of anything as it was all destroyed but that does not mean real science could prove a progressive collapse as described by NIST could not occur from fire

 

[DiveCon]

nist made its conclusion on the sound level required based on the loudest explosives possible with no consideration for sound dampening ..as well as the possibility of thermite being utilized...and none of this addresses trhe fact you claim nist failed to determine the correct collapse scenario

so what you are saying is that you have no physical proof that nist or anyone else is wrong.

no nobody has any physical proof of anything as it was all destroyed but that does not mean real science could prove a progressive collapse as described by NIST could not occur from fire

so, if NIST was wrong in the fire causing the progressive collapse alone, and that structural damage played a larger role, that still doesnt support your bullshit claims of an explosive demo

 

[SFC Ollie]

So there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.

 

[DiveCon]

So there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.

any new investigation would come to the same major conclusions we already have
and these morons would continue with their stupidity
so a new investigation would do nothing for them

 

[eots]

so there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.

nonsense...the physics can prove the cause of the collapse

 

[eots]

so what you are saying is that you have no physical proof that nist or anyone else is wrong.

no nobody has any physical proof of anything as it was all destroyed but that does not mean real science could prove a progressive collapse as described by nist could not occur from fire

so, if nist was wrong in the fire causing the progressive collapse alone, and that structural damage played a larger role, that still doesnt support your bullshit claims of an explosive demo

what it means is their report is not creadible and needs to be archived and re-investigated

 

[eots]

Dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial

 

[DiveCon]

Dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial

we already know what happened, dipshit, we dont NEED another investigation

 

[Rat in the Hat]

so there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.

nonsense...the physics can prove the cause of the collapse

Hmmm, the physics. That sounds like another conspiritard that used to post here. I wonder where HE went?

Can the physics prove the 6 inch C-4 coated DoD supplied & welded re-bar that top 9/11 researcher Christophera documented was in the 17ft thick poured concrete core?

And when are you going to get around to telling me who is paying for my efforts? Those bastards still haven't sent me a check.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial

Why do we need a re-investigation? Top 9/11 researcher and scientist Christophera proved the twins had concrete cores re-enforced with 6 inch re-bar supplied and welded by the Dept of Defense which was coated in C-4 and armed with digital detonators.

Now, please tell me who is withholding my money so I can expose them for defrauding me.

 

[eots]

dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial

we already know what happened, dipshit, we dont need another investigation

but you rejected the nist explanation ?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Who do I contact to get my disinfo money?????

 

[DiveCon]

dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial

we already know what happened, dipshit, we dont need another investigation

but you rejected the nist explanation ?

i only disagree with PARTS of it
and yet nothing you have provided shows what YOU want to believe

 

[Mr. Jones]

What the NIST and the whole government investigation has is a THEORY BASED ON EVIDENCE.

Evidence that has been proven fallible, inconsistent, and incorrect, and an explanation of the collapses that doesn't answer many questions. The evidence that counters NISTS theory is vast and credible, but because it goes against your belief system it's not credible? Here's a short clip that touches on these facts.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg&feature=related[/ame]

See, you fucking assholes have nothing. No evidence. No real theory. Nothing. Just opinion that the government theory is wrong. In other words, all you asses have is your OPINION. Go find a first grader and have him explain the difference to you. It really isn't all that hard.

To actually say and believe this shows what an ignorant lying fuck you are. The claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.
NIST’s Denial of Evidence for Explosives
NIST and Scientific Fraud
There IS Physical Evidence of Explosives
There IS Testimonial Evidence for Explosives
NIST’s Own Theory of WTC 7’s Collapse is full of shit and they had to ADMIT to free fall when called out on it
NIST is guilty of Fabrication of Evidence

Yeah. I've seen these dishonest attempts at trying to prove the smoke was coming from somewhere else. Truthtards like to use still photographs because they don't show motion which means truthtards can pretend all sorts of things. Unfortunately for you stupid fucks, there is video.

WTC 7 South side

Now you need to cry about the pics and say they are dishonest? What a pussy they clearly show you are quite wrong in your assessment of the post office damage. YOU SAID WTC 7 DID NOT fall into it's own footprint, alluding to and even saying that the post office suffered significant damage as a result, that is why I posted the link to show you otherwise, quit trying to twist shit around. Go back and read what you claimed.

I love it when truthtards end up with shit all over them due to ignorance. Want another video showing smoke coming from WTC 7 and nowhere else?

More smoke

Your the one looking like an ass disputing something I didn't deny, but that's what you do best, twist shit around in all the threads you post in.

See all that smoke moving south from WTC 7? Can't be from any other WTC building as the WTC 7 was the northern most building of the complex. The wind was from the North blowing South. Another little fact you ignorant liars ignore in your attempt to explain away the truth.

WTC 5 AND 6 WERE ABLAZE and produced shitloads of smoke dumbass, are you going to deny this or shall I have to post that too? Strange how they didn't explode and collapse and pulverize into dust.

Video and the truth make you look like the lying ass you are. Care to try and refute the smoke again? Or are you going to run away like usual?

I get now, when we post video of stuff that solidifies our claims they aren't credible or you ignore it, but ONLY YOUR VIDEOS and witnesses are valid? Your still a disingenuous idiot, and proven liar. You've been caught red handed at this yet again!
When we post FDNY personnel that back up our theory= no good, but somehow your FDNY people are ok because a video that leaves out what over 180 other FDNY firefighters witnessesd and heard, namely explosions = good? It doesn't work that way and is a pussy way to try to win over the OCTASSes theory, and doesn't.
Perhaps one should take into account that Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9-11 Firefighters.
The Woolsey gag order created an Omerta-like mob silence that Firefighters and Police Officers have had to deal with to this day.

“[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] that, ‘many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. ‘There were definitely bombs in those buildings,’ he told me.”
Isaac also addressed the FBI gag order in an article by Greg Syzmanski, saying “It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear or retaliation or losing their jobs.” He mentions that the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials prevented them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. Syzmansky praised Isaacs in a highly interesting article titled One-Man Investigative Team.

9/11 Firefighters Told To Shut-up About Explosions In Towers noworldsystem.com

 

[Mr. Jones]

Back when Firefightersfor911truth first came out and published their members, there wasn't a single FDNY member among them. Most of them are from Seattle. Now, if you have evidence one of their members is from the FDNY and was there on 9/11, I would be happy to retract my statement. As it is, there is no evidence there is any FDNY firefighters who were at ground zero on 9/11 among their members.

BTW, rarely is a person evidence. You throw out a lot of stupid fucks who give their OPINION of what is going on, but opinions are not evidence.

So what links would you like to see?

WTC 7 Collapse

Listen closely. You can hear the collapse. You can't hear the massive explosions you truthtards like to pretend were going off to cut all the columns simultaniously to produce the free fall acceleration. Now go on ignoring it like a good little truthtard.

Miracle in stairwell B

Listen to their stories. These are people not giving opinion, but telling what they actually experienced. Now go ahead and ignore these people who clearly refute the claims of controlled demolition in a way nobody else ever can.

So there you have two pieces of incontrovertible evidence there was no controlled demolition.

Now let's see your evidence. Go ahead. Produce it.

The firefighter in your video actually says he heard the floors hitting each other! Boom Boom Boom! we know that pancake theory has been thrown in the trash heap of non sense, even by NIST!

So you think there should be no noise as each floor collapses under the weight? What kind of fucking moron are you? You don't have to have a pancake type collapse to know there are spaces between the floor that is


Well, there's one last problem. According to you liars, the explosives were in the core. Guess where they were? You got it. The core.

That is of course his opinion, but you always discount opinions as evidence.

Wrong again. An eyewitness is explaining what they saw and heard. It is first hand testimony as to what happened. That is why his testimony would be valid in a court of law, yet your retarded opinion would not be. Do you see the difference? Probably not.

It's all over your posts. You can't have it both ways idiot. We are supposed to believe that your witnesses are somehow more credible then others because they are your witnesses that adhere to your ass kissing OCTASSes theory. You're a fucking joke get lost.

Want to see a fucking joke? Look in the mirror. You'll see a major asshole looking back at you.

There is no reason to doubt the 14 people who survived the North tower collapse. They were THERE. They LIVED through it. Their testimony doesn't contradict the physical evidence. The two witnesses you fucktards have are directly refuted by physical evidence. You remember where you claimed explosions weren't necessary? Well, according to your witnesses they were there and they were MASSIVE. Yet nobody else can hear them. No audio track recorded them. But you would have everyone believe two witnesses over all the other witnesses who didn't see/hear anything like what your witnesses said happened and video/audio tapes confirm it didn't happen as your witnesses claim.

So yes. My witnesses ARE FAR more credible than your two witnesses. Their testimony fits the known facts. Yours? At least one is a blatant lie. All recordings of OTA transmissions were recorded that day. No countdown. Yet he pretends he heard a countdown because it makes it more dramatic. He isn't the first to exaggerate or embellish his story to get attention. Look at the utter dishonesty of William Rodriguez.

Hmmmm. Truthtards. Can't trust them about ANYTHING!

The NIST theory has been proven to show it is full of shit, like you. You can knock down all the strawmen you want to, and claim your witnesses are better and whatever but the facts of the entire day do not add up. Every single piece of what you use to support NIST and the official fantasy has been shot down, EVERYTHING, and more then once on this forum, all one has to do is look up your past posts. If there is any one that can't be trusted to produce anything credible or plausible it is you, all you do is chase your own tail by parroting the same ole busted down shit