Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[candycorn]

Explain the Bankers Trust IBeam from the FEMA photo.

I did, a 110 story building fell on it.

You see i know that I am not an expert at building high rise buildings or physics and i freely admit that. But i do have some common sense. So flat out we all saw it, a 110 story building fell on it.

I thought Take a shit bath was leaving? Gee, another lie from another twoofer; the common denominator of all twoofers; basic dishonesty and bad breath.

 

[Gamolon]

to see if anyone agrees and if not then what they do question

Spin away eots. Spin away.

We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.

so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?

You said you didn't it didn't represent my opinion right? You want people to respond that agree with all that you said. That "everything is right with the world and the US government".

Since it wasn't directed at me, and you said it didn't represent my opinion, then why would I respond?

 

[Gamolon]

to see if anyone agrees and if not then what they do question

Spin away eots. Spin away.

We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.

so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?

YouTube - Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News

No, dip shit. Look how much material remained. It Pulverized. Explain the energy needed for that.

So now reporters are your experts? Really?

the media reported it moron, the source was the E.P.A researchers

eots, you and I both know that your'e not changing what you believe to be true and neither am I.

It's fruitless to come in here and discuss the claims and evidence either side brings to the table. It always turns into name calling and derogatory remarks (which I am guilty of also) and nothing gets accomplished.

At this point, nothing is going to change how people view each other on this forum and what their "agenda" supposedly is. That takes away even MORE chance of a legitimate debate as people are already jaded that I (we) are agents and are pushing lies to avoid the truth.

I would be all for an investigation, but not for the same reasons you have. I think people fucked up procedurally during 9/11 and are trying to cover their asses from mistakes made. I DON'T think the government was behind 9/11. I don't think the buildings were demoed. I don't think holographic planes were used. I don't believe DEWs, nukes, thermite, explosives, missiles, or anything else was used. I don't think it was to control the oil because if it was, 10 years later, I wouldn't be paying over $4.00 for a friggin' gallon of gas.

This country was attacked as they say it was. We got caught with our pants down.

The other side of this is that there are many "conspiracy theories" that people have supposed "rock hard" evidence of. The problem is, only one can be true. That makes quite a few people VERY stupid looking for believing bullshit.

In closing, you and I have been here debating for some time and neither has budged. Neither has Creativedreams, Candycorn, Ollie, Takeastepback, Terrell, 9/11, and others, to name a few.

So tell me. What good does it do if we know that neither side will ever change their thinking? What good does it do that there are many different conspiracy theories out there, all with people touting their facts, sticking their chests out, fist raised in defiance, and saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong!" Even the "truthers" argue amongst themselves. What does that say?

You guys/gals are just like that which you hate (The US government). How ironic. There's the "DEW party", the "Thermite party", the "Nuke party", the "Hologaphic Planes" party, the "North of the Citgo party", the "Explosives party", the "Missile party", the "No plane and Shanksville" party, etc. All vieing to be king of the hill. But, as the Highlander once said, "There can be only one!"

I think it's hypocritical when any of you say your "just trying to find the truth", yet all you argue against is the "Official Story". You never speak out against any other conspiracy. Ever. Like I've said before, as long as everyone on yur side fights against the common foe (The US government), you could care less if someone else on your side is blatantly wrong. As long as you stand together in defiance.

So what good will come of debating further?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually, I push against the controlled demolition theory all the time.

Ultimately, that's the most insightful post I've seen from you yet, Gamolon. Well said. And I have to agree.

But then again, I truly am only after the truth. No matter what conclusion that brings us to. Unfortunately, in the end, like you point out, there is way too much "shit" in the toilet on this topic and somewhere underneath it all is a truth that will likely go unnoticed. It's a tragic ending to this tale.

 

[Gamolon]

Actually, I push against the controlled demolition theory all the time.

Ultimately, that's the most insightful post I've seen from you yet, Gamolon. Well said. And I have to agree.

But then again, I truly am only after the truth. No matter what conclusion that brings us to. Unfortunately, in the end, like you point out, there is way too much "shit" in the toilet on this topic and somewhere underneath it all is a truth that will likely go unnoticed. It's a tragic ending to this tale.

Is there a way to have a real debate about the topics at hand even if we (including the others here in this forum) are at opposite ends of the spectrum on what we believe at this point and time?

Can we have a sensible debate with real proof and evidence and possibly come to an amicable conclusion? One that is reached without name calling and snide remarks?

I'm all for rational discussion. As I admitted above, I was part of the problem, but am willing to change that if others are.

 

[Triton]

There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!


It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!

 

[Triton]

Actually, I push against the controlled demolition theory all the time.

Ultimately, that's the most insightful post I've seen from you yet, Gamolon. Well said. And I have to agree.

But then again, I truly am only after the truth. No matter what conclusion that brings us to. Unfortunately, in the end, like you point out, there is way too much "shit" in the toilet on this topic and somewhere underneath it all is a truth that will likely go unnoticed. It's a tragic ending to this tale.

Interesting, If you are willing to withstand the onslaught from our fellow posters, perhaps you can explain what you believe caused the collapse of the towers?

 

[Patriot911]

There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!


It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!

Ah, more bullshit lies from Triton. I realize you fuckers like to pretend you're actually telling the truth, but the reality of the situation is that they COULD fly and in more than just a Cessna. Then again, you shitheads like to ignore the truth in order to push your bullshit lies and agendas.

Don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself, though. I rather enjoy watching you lame ***** tripping all over yourselves with all your mistakes that you then run away from when called on them. Shall I go over the rather lengthy list of bullshit you tried to pass off as fact and got your ass handed to you?

 

[Triton]

You claim fire melts steel.....

Oh wait nevermind, thats not right, you didn't make that claim because you said there was no molten steel.

Because you said there was no molten steel there was no molten steel, You were using "Candycorn Logic" I forgot.

You stick to that "progressive' collapse theory

 

[Patriot911]

You claim fire melts steel.....

I've never made that claim. That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.

Oh wait nevermind, thats not right, you didn't make that claim because
you said there was no molten steel.

Wrong yet again, shit for brains. I said ******* idiots like you who like to pretend they can tell the metalurgical makeup of a molten metal is actually molten steel just by glancing at it, or that anyone else can, are retarded.

Because you said there was no molten steel there was no molten steel, You were using "Candycorn Logic" I forgot.

Wrong again, shit for brains. See, when you start with lies, you end up with lies.

You stick to that "progressive' collapse theory

Why would I not stick with the truth? Stupid ***** like you pretend it was a controlled demolition, yet can't answer even the most basic of questions raised if your bullshit were true.... like where were the explosions?

So go ahead and continue with the mindless bullshit, Triton. I am sure nobody other than 9/11 inside job is impressed, and the only reason 9/11 inside job is impressed is because he wants to suck up to you for some unknown and unholy reason.

 

[Triton]

The progressive collapse theory regarding WTC7's collapse is complete hogwash.


Pretty much just like everything you type Patriot911.



Why not change your handle to "FucktardTwooferH8tr" or something of that nature, it would make your posts even more hilarious.

 

[eots]

I think it's hypocritical when any of you say your "just trying to find the truth", yet all you argue against is the "Official Story". You never speak out against any other conspiracy. Ever. Like I've said before, as long as everyone on yur side fights against the common foe (The US government), you could care less if someone else on your side is blatantly wrong. As long as you stand together in defiance.

just more of your editorial ramblings exaggerations and distortions

So what good will come of debating further?

it will counter balance trolls such as yourself and keep the questions from disappearing down the rabbit hole

 

[eots]

Spin away eots. Spin away.

We both know you're full of shit. Just read your words again.

so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?

So now reporters are your experts? Really?

the media reported it moron, the source was the E.P.A researchers

eots, you and I both know that your'e not changing what you believe to be true and neither am I.

It's fruitless to come in here and discuss the claims and evidence either side brings to the table. It always turns into name calling and derogatory remarks (which I am guilty of also) and nothing gets accomplished.

At this point, nothing is going to change how people view each other on this forum and what their "agenda" supposedly is. That takes away even MORE chance of a legitimate debate as people are already jaded that I (we) are agents and are pushing lies to avoid the truth.

I would be all for an investigation, but not for the same reasons you have. I think people fucked up procedurally during 9/11 and are trying to cover their asses from mistakes made. I DON'T think the government was behind 9/11. I don't think the buildings were demoed. I don't think holographic planes were used. I don't believe DEWs, nukes, thermite, explosives, missiles, or anything else was used. I don't think it was to control the oil because if it was, 10 years later, I wouldn't be paying over $4.00 for a friggin' gallon of gas.

So you" logic" is if 9/11 was a staged event a new pearl harbor allowed to happen or assisted in happening the motivation would be to control oil to sell you cheap gas and seeing as gas is expensive the there can be no prior knowledge or assistance in the attacks of 9/11

 

[Mr. Jones]

There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!

It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!

Ah, more bullshit lies from Triton. I realize you fuckers like to pretend you're actually telling the truth, but the reality of the situation is that they COULD fly and in more than just a Cessna. Then again, you shitheads like to ignore the truth in order to push your bullshit lies and agendas.

Don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself, though. I rather enjoy watching you lame ***** tripping all over yourselves with all your mistakes that you then run away from when called on them. Shall I go over the rather lengthy list of bullshit you tried to pass off as fact and got your ass handed to you?

Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
We can go back and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.

He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.
The flight instructors themselves said they were shit pilots for Christ sake!
Why don't you go ahead and post all the facts we get wrong then with actual references to back it up?
You hardly ever do, and you honestly expect people to take your word for it!?

One side of this argument has facts backed up by science and credible sources with no self interest or benefits to gain from truthfully trying to explain what they know, while the side that Parrot 9-11 is for, namely the government, its agencies, and people who depend on one of those 2 for their livelihood, have been caught numerous times changing their story, stonewalling investigations, ignoring witnesses and evidence, and basically shitting on the people they swore to protect and work for. Us, the public footing the bill for the "war on terror"

Actually folks should not listen to people like him, or so called truthers, they should research this 9-11 topic, and others, that have affected their lives, and then make up their own minds as to which side has the more credible hypothesis.

In all honesty these forums are only good for obtaining interesting links and videos to help them along.

Regarding what Gamolon has posted, I'm rather shocked but would take him up on his offer to discuss/debate topics in a sane manner, as I have to agree that the name calling and personal attacks accomplishes nothing, and just further alienates us and any new comers to the site, which based on your postings, folks can't help but think is your intended goal.

I have done this as well, BUT only in my own defense when someone starts shit with me first. Go ahead and look all those times up if you want to.
Regardless, I have always said that I initially believed the government and the media when 9-11 first happened, and it was the government and the media who gave me reasons to start doubting it, and ultimately confirmed for me they are covering things up and lying about much of it.

I cannot even begin to understand that even with all the land mines of lies, obstructions, and distortions, and in such great quantities, that the government has placed in the path of the truth about 9-11, you people don't seem upset with them.
Instead you get all bent out of shape and foam at the mouth at people who are just pointing out all the discrepancies!
Who can be blamed for thinking you all are what many have accused you of being?

Takestepback is just one example of someone who has a different opinion on how the WTC collapses occurred, but we agree they sure as hell couldn't have been destroyed the way they told us they did. Then you try to use this difference to ridicule ALL who don't believe as you do? That WE can't get OUR story straight?!

The governments version of the conspiracy theory has gone through its share of additions, subtractions, retractions, and changes, so how in the hell were WE supposed to know what exactly to look into, when parts of the story changes ?

Just like you try to lump all the skeptics of the 9-11 official version, with those who say their were no planes etc..
Clearly a strawman that you are so proud to easily knock down.
Anybody with any sense can see right through your fallacies and that you create your own PHONY arguments to further muddy the discussion!

I could go on and on and even repost the nutty fruit loop way some of you debate but it's a waste of time as it will lead to more of the same.

One other thing that I will state, that many of you ignore is that sometimes the 2 opposing opinions appeal to be correct will be decided solely on the credibility of the authoritative agency or people making the thesis, point or statements, and in that case I would argue that the government and their agencies are at a huge disadvantage based on that.
What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.
The deck is stacked, it's as simple as that.

 

[Mr. Jones]

so what you are saying is you disagree with the statement but are unable to elaborate as to why ?

eots, you and I both know that your'e not changing what you believe to be true and neither am I.

It's fruitless to come in here and discuss the claims and evidence either side brings to the table. It always turns into name calling and derogatory remarks (which I am guilty of also) and nothing gets accomplished.

At this point, nothing is going to change how people view each other on this forum and what their "agenda" supposedly is. That takes away even MORE chance of a legitimate debate as people are already jaded that I (we) are agents and are pushing lies to avoid the truth.

I would be all for an investigation, but not for the same reasons you have. I think people fucked up procedurally during 9/11 and are trying to cover their asses from mistakes made. I DON'T think the government was behind 9/11. I don't think the buildings were demoed. I don't think holographic planes were used. I don't believe DEWs, nukes, thermite, explosives, missiles, or anything else was used. I don't think it was to control the oil because if it was, 10 years later, I wouldn't be paying over $4.00 for a friggin' gallon of gas.

So you" logic" is if 9/11 was a staged event a new pearl harbor allowed to happen or assisted in happening the motivation would be to control oil to sell you cheap gas and seeing as gas is expensive the there can be no prior knowledge or assistance in the attacks of 9/11

Of course because we all know that if US oil companies really had control of the oil, we would all get the company discount! Because we're Americans and they really really like us, silly!

 

[Mr. Jones]

You claim fire melts steel.....

[quote Patriot911]I've never made that claim. That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.

LOL, what a bald face liar you are. You just got busted you lying POS! "Fucktard Truthers" the lying scum says
So called experts and the media that support the official government version like you, started spreading this melting steel story around! Like these sources-

Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion
And you claim there were no explosions?
Stanford Professor Steven Block, an expert on national security and terrorism, spoke with the press Tuesday to answer technical questions surrounding the World Trade Center disaster.
"The intense heat could have melted the buildings’ cores, allowing for the collapses, he suggested."
Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion: 9/01

Twin towers' steel under scrutiny
An engineer from Newcastle...Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton,
"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem.
"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel...

BBC News | ENGLAND | Twin towers' steel under scrutiny

Design choice for towers saved lives
"A lucky choice of design for the World Trade Center towers reduced the death toll caused by their destruction, say engineers.
Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape. --
Many skyscrapers have vertical columns up to six metres apart and rely on combined diagonal struts to bear loads. Destroying these structures would probably collapse a building immediately."

Wow what a contradiction we have here! Some of you say the towers were designed so differently that you site that as a flaw that led to their demise! They even go on to say-
"Classic demolition-
The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

"If there's any good thing about this it's that the towers tended not to weaken to one side," said Taylor. "They could have tipped onto other buildings or into the river across the West Side highway."

The collapse of the WTC towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but also on several consecutive floors about a third of the way up the building.

The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.

On Tuesday, the impacts of aeroplanes on the higher floors replaced the explosives. The collapse of the higher floors caused the floors below to be crushed. "It cascaded down like an implosion," says Taylor.
Wow those guys must be "lying truthtards" because YOU say it didn't look like a CD, Isn't that right Parrot?
Design choice for towers saved lives - 12 September 2001 - New Scientist

How the World Trade Center fell
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

I would have given the order to get out - you would have thought someone with technical expertise would have been advising them
Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University
"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell

So why can't you coincitard conspiracy theorists get your story straight? Your experts said this shit about melting steel, not your so called 'Fucktard Truthers"
The very ones that support YOUR version went around to the worlds news and media espousing this shit, even saying how coincidentally similar to a controlled demolition the collapses looked too!?
Looks like you went a bit too far and got caught red handed in another one of your lies, scumbag!

Oh wait nevermind, thats not right, you didn't make that claim because
you said there was no molten steel.

[quotePatriot911]Wrong yet again, shit for brains. I said ******* idiots like you who like to pretend they can tell the metalurgical makeup of a molten metal is actually molten steel just by glancing at it, or that anyone else can, are retarded.

Maybe you coincitards should have stuck to the steel melting caused the collapse story, then you could explain the very real molten steel/metal that was witnessed by those at GZ, and by Nasa thermal imaging. You have sided with the "no molten steel" side of this debate, now you are nitpicking as to the type of metal it was you lying troll!? The fact remains it was ******* molten!

•"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001."
SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc.

Because you said there was no molten steel there was no molten steel, You were using "Candycorn Logic" I forgot.

[quotePatriot911]Wrong again, shit for brains. See, when you start with lies, you end up with lies.

You would know, since you have shown to be the biggest liar on here!

You stick to that "progressive' collapse theory

[quotePatriot911]Why would I not stick with the truth? Stupid ***** like you pretend it was a controlled demolition, yet can't answer even the most basic of questions raised if your bullshit were true.... like where were the explosions?

And just how many times does one have to post and link for you the many witnesses that claim explosions? You like to play the fruit loop version of the disinformation game don't you?
Lying Parrot 9-11 will have people believe office supplies like dustbuster and Lemon Pledge caused all those explosions, and witnesses like FDNY, and media people who were told to move away are all just "truthtards"

[quotePatriot911]So go ahead and continue with the mindless bullshit, Triton. I am sure nobody other than 9/11 inside job is impressed, and the only reason 9/11 inside job is impressed is because he wants to suck up to you for some unknown and unholy reason.

I just busted your lying ass with proof for all to see!
BTW...IMHO I think it is you and "Candy"corn that have some kind of unnatural alliance thing going on, considering all the sick sexual innuendos you 2 always post. Did you 2 change positions today??
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3652595-post580.html

 

[SFC Ollie]

There was no pulverized concrete, no dust, no molten steel, no total collapse, no free fall collapse, no symmetrical collapse!

It was the 19 cavemen with boxcutters who couldn't fly a Cessna who did it!!!!!!!!!

Ah, more bullshit lies from Triton. I realize you fuckers like to pretend you're actually telling the truth, but the reality of the situation is that they COULD fly and in more than just a Cessna. Then again, you shitheads like to ignore the truth in order to push your bullshit lies and agendas.

Don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself, though. I rather enjoy watching you lame ***** tripping all over yourselves with all your mistakes that you then run away from when called on them. Shall I go over the rather lengthy list of bullshit you tried to pass off as fact and got your ass handed to you?

Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
We can go back and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.

He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.
The flight instructors themselves said they were shit pilots for Christ sake!
Why don't you go ahead and post all the facts we get wrong then with actual references to back it up?
You hardly ever do, and you honestly expect people to take your word for it!?

One side of this argument has facts backed up by science and credible sources with no self interest or benefits to gain from truthfully trying to explain what they know, while the side that Parrot 9-11 is for, namely the government, its agencies, and people who depend on one of those 2 for their livelihood, have been caught numerous times changing their story, stonewalling investigations, ignoring witnesses and evidence, and basically shitting on the people they swore to protect and work for. Us, the public footing the bill for the "war on terror"

Actually folks should not listen to people like him, or so called truthers, they should research this 9-11 topic, and others, that have affected their lives, and then make up their own minds as to which side has the more credible hypothesis.

In all honesty these forums are only good for obtaining interesting links and videos to help them along.

Regarding what Gamolon has posted, I'm rather shocked but would take him up on his offer to discuss/debate topics in a sane manner, as I have to agree that the name calling and personal attacks accomplishes nothing, and just further alienates us and any new comers to the site, which based on your postings, folks can't help but think is your intended goal.

I have done this as well, BUT only in my own defense when someone starts shit with me first. Go ahead and look all those times up if you want to.
Regardless, I have always said that I initially believed the government and the media when 9-11 first happened, and it was the government and the media who gave me reasons to start doubting it, and ultimately confirmed for me they are covering things up and lying about much of it.

I cannot even begin to understand that even with all the land mines of lies, obstructions, and distortions, and in such great quantities, that the government has placed in the path of the truth about 9-11, you people don't seem upset with them.
Instead you get all bent out of shape and foam at the mouth at people who are just pointing out all the discrepancies!
Who can be blamed for thinking you all are what many have accused you of being?

Takestepback is just one example of someone who has a different opinion on how the WTC collapses occurred, but we agree they sure as hell couldn't have been destroyed the way they told us they did. Then you try to use this difference to ridicule ALL who don't believe as you do? That WE can't get OUR story straight?!

The governments version of the conspiracy theory has gone through its share of additions, subtractions, retractions, and changes, so how in the hell were WE supposed to know what exactly to look into, when parts of the story changes ?

Just like you try to lump all the skeptics of the 9-11 official version, with those who say their were no planes etc..
Clearly a strawman that you are so proud to easily knock down.
Anybody with any sense can see right through your fallacies and that you create your own PHONY arguments to further muddy the discussion!

I could go on and on and even repost the nutty fruit loop way some of you debate but it's a waste of time as it will lead to more of the same.

One other thing that I will state, that many of you ignore is that sometimes the 2 opposing opinions appeal to be correct will be decided solely on the credibility of the authoritative agency or people making the thesis, point or statements, and in that case I would argue that the government and their agencies are at a huge disadvantage based on that.
What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.
The deck is stacked, it's as simple as that.

So with all your little speech here, what you really mean is that it doesn't matter what evidence is brought out, or what anyone says, if it originated with a government agency it's a lie.

Thank you for playing. You have a wonderfully open mind. NOT!.

 

[Patriot911]

OH GOOD! Fucktard Jones is about to go down in flames YET AGAIN because he is a lying piece of shit who can't go a post without lying his ass off!

You claim fire melts steel.....

[quote Patriot911]I've never made that claim. That is usually done by fucktard truthers like you who don't know the difference.

LOL, what a bald face liar you are. You just got busted you lying POS! "Fucktard Truthers" the lying scum says
So called experts and the media that support the official government version like you, started spreading this melting steel story around! Like these sources-

Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion
And you claim there were no explosions?

And here we have BLATANT LIE NUMBER ONE from Fucktard Jones! I've never said there were no explosions. I've said there were plenty of explosions as one would expect during a major fire. What I've claimed is that you stupid ***** pretending every explosion is caused by explosives. Now, one period of time we KNOW there were no explosions was right before and during the collapse of WTC 7, which makes all you stupid ***** lying jackasses when you claim WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

BTW, the Standford scientist is talking about the impact of the planes. You STILL can't manage to post relevant information!

Stanford Professor Steven Block, an expert on national security and terrorism, spoke with the press Tuesday to answer technical questions surrounding the World Trade Center disaster.
"The intense heat could have melted the buildings’ cores, allowing for the collapses, he suggested."
Stanford scientist compares impact of World Trade Center attack to a nuclear bomb explosion: 9/01

And he was wrong. He isn't an expert in engineering or fires. He is an expert on national security and terrorism. Thus you, in your extreme ignorance, are trying to use the opinion of a non-expert as an expert opinion. Once again you end up covered in shit when you try and prove something with irrelevant and incorrect information.

Twin towers' steel under scrutiny
An engineer from Newcastle...Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton,
"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem.
"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel...

BBC News | ENGLAND | Twin towers' steel under scrutiny

And he was wrong or misspoke. Jet fuel won't melt the beams because it can neither get hot enough nor burn long enough. These are the facts.

Design choice for towers saved lives
"A lucky choice of design for the World Trade Center towers reduced the death toll caused by their destruction, say engineers.
Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape. --
Many skyscrapers have vertical columns up to six metres apart and rely on combined diagonal struts to bear loads. Destroying these structures would probably collapse a building immediately."

Wow what a contradiction we have here! Some of you say the towers were designed so differently that you site that as a flaw that led to their demise! They even go on to say-

Funny how you have to rely on exerpts from the DAY AFTER 9/11 to try and prove your claim. How desperate you little bitches are getting!

"Classic demolition-
The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

Really? So a top down collapse looks like a controlled demolition that always goes from the bottom up? Keep dreaming you stupid ****!

"If there's any good thing about this it's that the towers tended not to weaken to one side," said Taylor. "They could have tipped onto other buildings or into the river across the West Side highway."

Wrong again. This is what happens when you listen to a demolitions expert that isn't a structural engineer and doesn't understand the dynamics of buildings many times larger than what are commonly demolished. With the kinds of weights you're dealing with in the towers, there is NO WAY IN HELL the supports on one side could keep up the entire weight of the building long enough for the tower to tip. Not to mention the fact the load bearing structures in the tower were in the core in the center of the tower, not on the edges as one would have to have to be able to "weaken on one side".

The collapse of the WTC towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but also on several consecutive floors about a third of the way up the building.

Yet there were no explosions on the lower floors like what happens in a controlled demolition. We know this because we had survivors on the lower floors and they both survived and didn't hear the massive explosions that would happen RIGHT WHERE THEY WERE.

The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.

But wait! This is what you stupid truthtards pretend was IMPOSSIBLE! That the collapse couldn't have started on those floors and collapse the entire building! Yet here you have an expert saying it would be necessary! Way to debunk yourself, asshole!

On Tuesday, the impacts of aeroplanes on the higher floors replaced the explosives. The collapse of the higher floors caused the floors below to be crushed. "It cascaded down like an implosion," says Taylor.
Wow those guys must be "lying truthtards" because YOU say it didn't look like a CD, Isn't that right Parrot?

Care to find a top down controlled demolition? Notice he says it was LIKE an implosion, not that it was. Once again you have an expert refuting your claims, yet you insist on pretending that if you twist his words to say something he isn't saying that he somehow becomes credible.

How the World Trade Center fell
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.

"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

I would have given the order to get out - you would have thought someone with technical expertise would have been advising them
Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University
"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
BBC News | AMERICAS | How the World Trade Center fell

Same shit, different article.

So why can't you coincitard conspiracy theorists get your story straight? Your experts said this shit about melting steel, not your so called 'Fucktard Truthers"

So you think posting articles from the days directly after 9/11 where the experts didn't clarify the steel didn't have to become molten for a collapse to start somehow means all the steel had to melt? Talk about fucked up! First you fucktards are saying there is no way the fires could have been hot enough to even initiate a collapse, now you're saying everything melted! You need to seriously figure out what story you're going to go with!

For the record, the experts have clarified that the steel didn't have to melt to the point of being molten. They clarified that steel exposed to the kinds of fires seen in an office fire like in the towers will lose more than half of it's strength and eventually fail.

The very ones that support YOUR version went around to the worlds news and media espousing this shit, even saying how coincidentally similar to a controlled demolition the collapses looked too!?

So according to stupid ***** like you, nobody can make a mistake or everything they say should be taken as absolute and not allow for any clarification? Good to know. It destroys your credibility even more!

Looks like you went a bit too far and got caught red handed in another one of your lies, scumbag!

Wrong again, fucktard! I've never claimed the steel was melted and you've presented ZERO PROOF the steel was melted. Taking a couple people in the days after 9/11 using incorrect terms doesn't cut it. Why can't you present some of this melted steel? The closest you stupid ***** have come is presenting a small blob that is obviously compressed into many layers, but was never molten and you can't even say what the composition of the blob is.

Maybe you coincitards should have stuck to the steel melting caused the collapse story, then you could explain the very real molten steel/metal that was witnessed by those at GZ, and by Nasa thermal imaging.

Which is it? Steel or metal? There are several metals that can melt at the temperatures seen at GZ. Steel is not among them. When you lying ***** say it was molten steel, you're PRETENDING you know the exact composition of the metal. I know you're lying. You know you're lying. Everyone ELSE knows you're lying. Better wipe all that shit off your face before it dries.

You have sided with the "no molten steel" side of this debate, now you are nitpicking as to the type of metal it was you lying troll!? The fact remains it was ******* molten!

The only part I've been debating is the composition. I've been doing that from the start. So pretending I've changed that now is just flat out dishonest, but what else can one expect from a known proven liar like you? I even CLEARLY expressed exactly what my position was in the post you quoted. Funny how you left that part off. Why was that? Because you knew if taken in context you would look like a complete jackass? Yeah, I thought so.

As for the thermal imaging, they never recorded temperatures over 1400F, far short of what one would expect from molten steel, yet well within the temperature range for an office fire. Man, when you step in it, you REALLY step in it!!!!

Thermal images that prove Fucktard Jones is a piece of shit liar.... AGAIN!

•"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001."
SH&E professionals from Bechtel Group Inc.
Why can't you post the original article? I found lots of this exact quote all over the web, but attributed to several groups and none of them with links.

You would know, since you have shown to be the biggest liar on here!

Yet you still haven't proven a single lie you claim I have made. In the mean time, I've exposed plenty of yours. Don't you hate it when someone like me makes you look like the complete fool that you are?

[quotePatriot911]Why would I not stick with the truth? Stupid ***** like you pretend it was a controlled demolition, yet can't answer even the most basic of questions raised if your bullshit were true.... like where were the explosions?

And just how many times does one have to post and link for you the many witnesses that claim explosions?

In a controlled demolition you have explosions just prior to and during the collapse. VIDEO AND AUDIO EVIDENCE proves there were no explosions just prior to or during the collapse. There were two witnesses to "explosions" during the collapse. One is a known, proven liar as he also claimed there was a countdown on a red cross radio, yet review of the tapes show no countdown. The other one was so close to the collapse he probably confused structures snapping for explosions as he doesn't hear the explosions until AFTER the building has already started the collapse. He was caught completely unaware of the collapse until it had already started and someone had to point it out.

So we have conclusive hard evidence and two witnesses, one with zero credibility and one who heard them at the wrong time and with a plausible explanation.

So what other witnesses do you have? And how do you refute the hard evidence from multiple sources? Oh right. You're constantly running from the hard evidence like a little ***** afraid of the boogieman.

You like to play the fruit loop version of the disinformation game don't you?

Nope. That's just another one of your lies. I don't post disinformation. If I did, you would be able to actually refute it, not this pathetic piece of garbage I am sure you like to pretend is a refutation.

Lying Parrot 9-11 will have people believe office supplies like dustbuster and Lemon Pledge caused all those explosions, and witnesses like FDNY, and media people who were told to move away are all just "truthtards"

More lies from you. Why do you constantly feel the need to lie? Is it pathological or are you just mentally deranged? There are plenty of things that can explode in a fire. How do you explain the FACT not a single FDNY fire fighter present on 9/11 claims the explosions were caused by explosives? Don't you think they are credible? They have a legal and moral obligation to investigate what they consider an explosion caused by explosives as it would raise questions as to what happened.

Again the ******* liar known as Jones would have everyone believe that every explosion is caused by explosives, yet he can't explain why no evidence of explosives were ever found, nor why high explosives which leave a distinctive trace on seismographs failed to do so. The logical explanation is the explosions were not caused by high explosives.

BTW, fucktard Jones.... wasn't it you pretending the buildings acted like huge mufflers and this prevented everyone from hearing them? You have LOTS of excuses why people didn't hear explosions at the right times, yet those excuses directly contradict your claim that all the other explosions heard were from explosives.

So go ahead and continue with the mindless bullshit, Triton. I am sure nobody other than 9/11 inside job is impressed, and the only reason 9/11 inside job is impressed is because he wants to suck up to you for some unknown and unholy reason.

I just busted your lying ass with proof for all to see!

No, all you did was end up drenched in shit and got caught making more numerous lies. We all know what kind of egomaniac you are and have to try and pretend you've actually accomplished anything. It makes me shudder to think what a complete failure in life you must be to have to stoop to this level to try and prove you are actually worth anything. You're not.

BTW...IMHO I think it is you and "Candy"corn that have some kind of unnatural alliance thing going on, considering all the sick sexual innuendos you 2 always post. Did you 2 change positions today??

More meaningless homophobic bullshit from you. Grats on proving your irrelevance!

 

[Patriot911]

Why do you have to make a statement like that about Triton?
We can go back and see just how many times you have said and posted this same sentence, just insert a different name, and you post absolutely NOTHING that reinforces your statement.

If you stupid piece of shit liars didn't lie your asses off on a continuous basis, I wouldn't have to make claims like that, yet you do, so I do. Get it? Probably not. Go have someone in grade school explain it to you.

He obviously heard about the lack of flying skills from sources that if things were turned around, I have no doubt you'd be siding with.

No, I am not an ignorant **** like you. There is documented evidence of numerous solo long distance flights by Hanjour. There is also evidence that he had a COMMERCIAL pilots license back in 1999. He may not have been the best pilot in the world, but when lying piece of shit truthtards make the claim he couldn't even fly a Cessna when there is CLEAR DOCUMENTED PROOF that he did on numerous occasions, well, that is called a LIE.

Or what do you pretend it is called when someone blatantly states something as fact that is not true?

The flight instructors themselves said they were shit pilots for Christ sake!

No, they said HANJOUR was a bad pilot. See? You can't go a couple paragraphs without lying your ass off! And being a bad pilot is STILL BEING A PILOT. Yet Triton has made the claim he couldn't even fly a Cessna. And here you are defending his blatant lies.

Do you have evidence he couldn't fly a Cessna? Do you have evidence all the flight logs and plane rentals made by Hanjour are all false?

Why don't you go ahead and post all the facts we get wrong then with actual references to back it up?

We do. All the time. You stupid ***** ignore them and regurgitate the same lies over and over again. So where is Triton's references that Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna?

You hardly ever do, and you honestly expect people to take your word for it!?

Wrong yet again. It's just lie after lie after lie from you. When people demand links, I link my sources. You? You're not worth pissing on if you were on fire, so I usually don't bother to link stuff unless it really goes a long way towards proving you're a piece of shit liar, which, ironically, means I link a lot of stuff.

One side of this argument has facts backed up by science and credible sources with no self interest or benefits to gain from truthfully trying to explain what they know

And that would be our side. Your side has no science, no credible sources that aren't out to rape you silly ***** out of everything they can get from you, and no evidence to back up your claims. I find it hilarious you claim these people have no self interest in promoting 9/11 as they make their livings off you silly *****!

while the side that Parrot 9-11 is for, namely the government, its agencies, and people who depend on one of those 2 for their livelihood, have been caught numerous times changing their story, stonewalling investigations, ignoring witnesses and evidence, and basically shitting on the people they swore to protect and work for.

Wrong yet again, you lying ****! Has the story changed? Absolutely. That is what one would expect when new evidence is uncovered. Did people lie and stonewall the investigations? Yep! But why would they do that if it was some big conspiracy? The people doing the investigation are satisfied they got to the truth despite the lies from ***** like you.

And you and your fellow truthtards are so full of shit when you say witnesses were ignored, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU IGNORE MOST OF THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING WITNESSES! See, when one guy says something different from everyone else and the evidence supports what everyone else saw, then that witness is found to be lacking credibility. Besides, you piece of shit liars usually have to either draw conclusions not stated by the witness or directly change the meaning of what the witness said in order to make your point. A good example is when a firefighter witnessed an explosion and YOU pretend it was caused by explosives. The firefighter never said it was from explosives which he would have done if he thought it was from explosives. Another example is when witnesses use the word like and you dishonest ***** pretend the word like was never used.

For example if someone says it looked LIKE a controlled demolition, you dishonest ***** pretend the witness thought it WAS a controlled demolition. Wouldn't they then say it WAS a controlled demolition instead of using the word like? By using the word LIKE, one directly refutes that it IS. For instance, if I say you are LIKE a piece of shit liar, it means you are similar to, but are not a piece of shit liar. That is why I don't use the word LIKE when I call you a piece of shit liar. Get it?

Us, the public footing the bill for the "war on terror"

It's doubtful you make enough money to pay taxes, so quit pretending you are under such a burden.

Actually folks should not listen to people like him, or so called truthers, they should research this 9-11 topic, and others, that have affected their lives, and then make up their own minds as to which side has the more credible hypothesis.

If people have actual questions, I've always been more than happy to present them with all the evidence at my disposal. Unfortunately for stupid ***** like you, you have no actual evidence and have to rely on opinions and bullshit lies to try and sway opinion.

In all honesty these forums are only good for obtaining interesting links and videos to help them along.

Wrong yet again. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong time and time again? If someone wants information on a specific point, all they need to do is ask. It is when ignorant ***** like you pretend your theories are fact and ask people to act on your bullshit that you get treated like the shit you are.

Regarding what Gamolon has posted, I'm rather shocked but would take him up on his offer to discuss/debate topics in a sane manner, as I have to agree that the name calling and personal attacks accomplishes nothing, and just further alienates us and any new comers to the site, which based on your postings, folks can't help but think is your intended goal.

Yet you constantly revert back to name calling once you've had your ass handed to you yet again. You're such a self serving, egotistical hypocrite!

I have done this as well, BUT only in my own defense when someone starts shit with me first. Go ahead and look all those times up if you want to.

I have. You're lying, as usual.

Regardless, I have always said that I initially believed the government and the media when 9-11 first happened, and it was the government and the media who gave me reasons to start doubting it, and ultimately confirmed for me they are covering things up and lying about much of it.

Who gives a shit what you claim? You're a proven liar who continues to lie on a regular basis and can't defend his bullshit claims as he traitorously tries to spread sedition.

I cannot even begin to understand that even with all the land mines of lies, obstructions, and distortions, and in such great quantities, that the government has placed in the path of the truth about 9-11, you people don't seem upset with them.

Do I believe we have the entire truth? No. Are they completely wrong on every fact as you try so pathetically to pretend? No.

Instead you get all bent out of shape and foam at the mouth at people who are just pointing out all the discrepancies!

Wrong yet again, you piece of shit liar! You don't "point out discrepancies". You make claims as though they are fact. All one has to do is read your posts to know the truth of this.

Who can be blamed for thinking you all are what many have accused you of being?

Well, let's see.... you've just got done lying about what you do here by pretending you're just "pointing out discrepancies", yet we all know you do far more than that, specifically presenting theory after theory as to what you claim happened, yet have no evidence for, nor can you explain fully. We point out your bullshit and lies, and in retaliation, you try to cast dispersions by claiming we're paid trolls. Sounds pretty pathetic on your part! Maybe if you stuck to the facts and actually looked at all the evidence people wouldn't think you were such a disgusting human being.

Takestepback is just one example of someone who has a different opinion on how the WTC collapses occurred, but we agree they sure as hell couldn't have been destroyed the way they told us they did.

TakeAShit, like all the rest of the truthtards, comes up with theories that have no evidence and don't fit the facts. The reality is none of you truthtards can actually agree on who did it (government/Jews/Illuminati/aliens/boogiemen), what happened (explosives, DEW, nuclear weapons, 93 shot down, 93 landed elsewhere, Pentagon hit by missile, Pentagon hit by global hawk, etc. etc. etc), or how it was done (remote planes, holograms, high explosives, thermite, DEW etc. etc.). Yet we're suppose to take all you ignorant dipshits seriously and ignore all the evidence like you do in order to make your bullshit fit. Um.... no. I have integrity, unlike you.

Then you try to use this difference to ridicule ALL who don't believe as you do? That WE can't get OUR story straight?!

WOW! You finally got something right! See, the TRUTH is one thing. It isn't a bunch of different theories, many of which directly conflict with other theories. The TRUTH fits the EVIDENCE. The TRUTH doesn't care about opinion or assumptions. When you have to ignore the facts in order to get your theory to work, you're no longer working with the TRUTH.

The governments version of the conspiracy theory has gone through its share of additions, subtractions, retractions, and changes, so how in the hell were WE supposed to know what exactly to look into, when parts of the story changes ?

The story changes as new evidence comes to light. This is the way it is SUPPOSE to work! You don't stick to your original story like a retarded truthter when evidence comes to light that disqualifies the theory from being true. When you claim high explosives were used to bring down WTC 7 because of the speed of the collapse, yet no evidence of high explosives are found, most notably audio recordings of the collapse show no signs of the explosions themselves, one can correctly deduce that the claim of high explosives is WRONG. Do you change your theory? For a little bit. Then you come back to high explosives when all your other theories don't fit the known facts.

Just like you try to lump all the skeptics of the 9-11 official version, with those who say their were no planes etc..

No, I know all you truthtards don't agree. That's what is so funny about you lying *****!

Clearly a strawman that you are so proud to easily knock down.

You mean another lie by you that's been exposed!

Anybody with any sense can see right through your fallacies and that you create your own PHONY arguments to further muddy the discussion!

Wrong again. See, if it is a phony argument, you should be able to refute it, yet you can't. I can present evidence. You can't. So anyone that picks the theory based on lies and opinions with no evidence to back it up has to be seriously retarded. Hence truthtards.

I could go on and on and even repost the nutty fruit loop way some of you debate but it's a waste of time as it will lead to more of the same.

What.... you ending up with shit all over you? For once we agree.

One other thing that I will state, that many of you ignore is that sometimes the 2 opposing opinions appeal to be correct will be decided solely on the credibility of the authoritative agency or people making the thesis, point or statements, and in that case I would argue that the government and their agencies are at a huge disadvantage based on that.

Really? Because you truthtards have no credibility and no evidence. So once again you've been caught lying your ass off trying to make you and your fellow ***** seem credible when the truth is you're not.

What it comes down to for me is that YOU believe the known, proven liars and their entities, who have ALL the power and connections, by which they are able to control and intimidate witnesses, public opinion through the media, and are in charge of the courts who then decide what is considered truth and evidence, where as I choose to NOT believe these liars and those they influence and control based on their less then honorable reputation.

In other words, you have to come up with excuses to dismiss all the evidence instead of actually being able to refute the evidence. You pretend everything is manipulated while ignoring reality which is you can't completely control something as massive as the coverup behind your bullshit would have to be.

The deck is stacked, it's as simple as that.

Yup. We have the truth and you have lies. It doesn't come more stacked than that!

 

[Gamolon]

I assume you're being sarcastic, so I'll respond to each as to what I believe.

There was no pulverized concrete,

There was pulverized concrete. Was ALL concrete totally pulverized to fine powder? No.

no dust,

There was dust. What's your point? Do you realize how much gypsum planking was in the towers? How much dust would that create upon collapse?

no molten steel,

Nobody know this for sure. It could have been molten aluminum. This cannot be identified visually. That's a fact. Unless you have tests of this molten substance showing otherwise. The fact remains that nobody knows what it actually was.

no total collapse,

There was total collapse.

no free fall collapse,

Parts of the buildings fell at free fall. None of the buildings fell at total free fall. If you want to argue this point, I'll ask you to provide me the following. Take the height of each building and tell me the total time it should have taken each building to collapse completely to the ground. Then we'll discuss it.

no symmetrical collapse!

Nope. No symmetrical collapse. None of the three buildings collapsed like this. We've been over this before. I even posted a video of both a symmetrical collapse and a non-symmetrical collapse. You even agreed that the one video was non-symmetrical.