SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Direct quote, reminds me of Oliver North, Never heard a LTC with so many "I don't recall"s
Which 9/11 conspiracy do you believe? ((improved))
- Thread starter JiggsCasey
- Start date
eots
no fly list
ya those whacky koo koo air crash investigators... they are all the same
rCol. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career.
Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number ....
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
eots
no fly list
notice how the controlled media likes to refer to these issues as "Rosie ODonnelsl wacky theories"" or "loose change theories.". but never those "wacky ex-presidents of the air crash investigation boards theories "..it always amazes me how this fact is lost on those in denial and they will in fact parrot that same distortion and propaganda themselves
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
Now here's a guy who offers no explanations and tells truthers not to try to come up with the truth...
"We can all agree that all three WTC towers were
brought down by demolition charges. But any attempt to identify the
explosives as possibly nuclear, thermite/thermate, RDX etc. is just
divisive. In the interests of unity in the Truth Movement, we must stop
speculating about exactly what type of means may have been used to bring
down the building." The fallacy of this approach should be apparent. The
use of micronukes, for instance, would open up new vistas for
investigation."
Col. George Nelson
He just likes to think that the buildings blew up I guess.
"We can all agree that all three WTC towers were
brought down by demolition charges. But any attempt to identify the
explosives as possibly nuclear, thermite/thermate, RDX etc. is just
divisive. In the interests of unity in the Truth Movement, we must stop
speculating about exactly what type of means may have been used to bring
down the building." The fallacy of this approach should be apparent. The
use of micronukes, for instance, would open up new vistas for
investigation."
Col. George Nelson
He just likes to think that the buildings blew up I guess.
eots
no fly list
that is because he is a professional investigator and the explanations are what investigation are to determine through proper investigation and protocols
eots
no fly list
rather than just cut and paste a list of people why dont you show the fucking quotes where they say explosive demolitions were used?
you clearly dont understand what you are arguing.
all posted indicate the belief that the buildings fell due to explosives and you can easily see that for yourself on the site so why do you pretend otherwise ?
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 350
- 0
- Banned
- #68
rather than just cut and paste a list of people why dont you show the fucking quotes where they say explosive demolitions were used?
you clearly dont understand what you are arguing.
all posted indicate the belief that the buildings fell due to explosives and you can easily see that for yourself on the site so why do you pretend otherwise ?
because you are a lazy, unemployed MORON.
its YOUR fucking evidence. YOU post it. show the quotes of where these people say explosive demolitions were used. i'm not going to go around to other sites looking for YOUR fucking evidence. post it.
eots
no fly list
rather than just cut and paste a list of people why dont you show the fucking quotes where they say explosive demolitions were used?
you clearly dont understand what you are arguing.
all posted indicate the belief that the buildings fell due to explosives and you can easily see that for yourself on the site so why do you pretend otherwise ?
because you are a lazy, unemployed MORON.
its YOUR fucking evidence. YOU post it. show the quotes of where these people say explosive demolitions were used. i'm not going to go around to other sites looking for YOUR fucking evidence. post it.
lazy unemployed ? wtf are talking about ? you are quick enough to scan the whole site for someone only asking for a reinvestigation but wont read the statements of a few I posted..that makes little sense
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
General Stubblebine: Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel -- vehicle, or whatever it was -- have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
Debunked here 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off -- there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence. Â…
Why? Because there is no evidence other than the parts of a 757.
I did -- I've never believed that it was an airplane since I've looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it -- NO WAY! Â…
We pride ourselves with the "free press." I do not believe the "free press" is free any more. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.
Thousands of reporters?
Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being -- what certainly the -- the stories that were told -- all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers. Â…
Again, no audio recordings of demolition charges
When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt -- to melt -- the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know?
No one except truthers has ever claimed that the steel melted.
Debunked here 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off -- there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence. Â…
Why? Because there is no evidence other than the parts of a 757.
I did -- I've never believed that it was an airplane since I've looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it -- NO WAY! Â…
We pride ourselves with the "free press." I do not believe the "free press" is free any more. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.
Thousands of reporters?
Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being -- what certainly the -- the stories that were told -- all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers. Â…
Again, no audio recordings of demolition charges
When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt -- to melt -- the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know?
No one except truthers has ever claimed that the steel melted.
Fizz
Rookie
- Nov 20, 2009
- 4,391
- 350
- 0
- Banned
- #71
yes, lazy and unemployed. what part of that are you having trouble understanding?
because you are a lazy, unemployed MORON.
its YOUR fucking evidence. YOU post it. show the quotes of where these people say explosive demolitions were used. i'm not going to go around to other sites looking for YOUR fucking evidence. post it.
lazy unemployed ? wtf are talking about ? you are quick enough to scan the whole site for someone only asking for a reinvestigation but wont read the statements of a few I posted..that makes little sense
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
your still too fucking lazy to show where the people you list claim explosive demolitions were used.
i didnt scan the "whole site" for someone asking for a reinvestigation. it was one of the first few i read, you idiot!!! thats the whole fucking point!!! you try to claim all these people you list support your idiotic explosive demolition shit by posting their names and you dont even bother to read why they are on that website!!
so once again, its YOUR fucking evidence. YOU show where they support your explosive demolition idiocy.
eots
no fly list
rather than just cut and paste a list of people why dont you show the fucking quotes where they say explosive demolitions were used?
you clearly dont understand what you are arguing.
here you go
Last edited:
psikeyhackr
Silver Member
- Jul 18, 2010
- 1,314
- 182
- 98
That is one of the annoying things about society. Having to conform to the majority regardless of the social nonsense. What percentage of people are actually smart enough to have contributed to things like putting men on the Moon or making the atomic bomb or television or computers?
So how many can figure out the relevant questions to analyzing Newtonian physics?
How does steel have to be distributed in a skyscraper just so it can hold itself up? Why is the CN Tower shaped like this?
So why has this 9/11 business gone on for NINE YEARS without discussion of the distribution of steel in the towers? What kind of physicist is Steve Jones without discussing something so obvious?
psik
Last edited:
JiggsCasey
VIP Member
- Jan 12, 2010
- 991
- 122
- 78
- Thread starter
- #74
Hi pumpkin. Been away for a while, but haven't forgotten your pomposity. You said something in your latest pre-pubescent neg.rep about "owning" me.
Why do I need to address every retarded, self-explanatory question your feeble mind presents? I'd rather not waste time covering the minutiae of the obvious in order to massage your hyperactive premise, ... but I guess if you're going to keep squawking like a parrot, let's let history shut you down.
The investigation into HUD scandals under Samuel Pierce cost $28 million.
The investigation of Eric Rudolph, the alleged Olympic and abortion clinic bomber cost over $20 million.
CNN.com - Art Harris: The Hunt for Eric Rudolph - July 27, 2001
The cost of the investigation into the crash of TWA flight 800 was about $35 million.
Seeking new light on TWA Flight 800; six years after the jetliner exploded in midair, a group of independent investigators has new evidence and is petitioning the government to reopen the investigation | Insight on the News Newspaper | Find Articles
The cost of recovery and investigation into the Challenger disaster was at least $175 million.
Cost of Columbia Accident Inquiry Is Soaring - Los Angeles Times
Now, considering 9/11 was the greatest crime in U.S. history, and far more wide-reaching and all-encompassing than ANY of those above, it's pretty clear to me that $30-40 million is a gross UNDER-estimation.
What the F are you talking about, twat waffle? Of course you'd have to pay your investigators. That's how federal investigations work, and most CERTAINLY, private investigations.
I've presented an "expert" who has made youtube vids? Are you confusing me with MIHOPers? Wouldn't surprise me that you can't keep your argument straight. You're kinda all over the place in this forum.
Please explain the cost of the investigations listed above then. If not, go fix yourself a nice heaping helping of STFU.
This was never in question, and explains your insecurity to a T. Next time, though, you should actually wait for an answer before running your mouth.
Again, you should really stick with what I type, not what you want to believe my position is or will be. Your straw manning strategy grows boring, and emblematic of your piss-poor argument through out this exchange. The forum continues to laugh at you.
Irony.
Of course, to beacon of light cons like this jaggov above, anyone having less than $30 million is "poor."
Poetic irony.
It's not that you "don't need to." That's the diversion. You never read links that kick the crap out of your hollow assertions. Because then you'd be brought face to face with what a loyalist sheep you really are. If you read the link, or did any actual research of your own, you'd see that the ISI wouldn't exist in it's current capacity without CIA assistance, and U.S. funding. It was the CIA-ISI union that drove the Soviets out of the region 23 years ago.
I did. It's just that you're too belligerant and retarded to acknowledge the FACT that massive investigations like that cost massive amounts of capital.
Wrong. How in the world do you make THAT weak of an anaology? The end game is an honest and thorough investigation. Period. But the time spent HERE is simply catharsis because I enjoy holding RW pablum accountable. People like you are an easy mark. Especially when you actually try and suggest the money trail somehow isn't a gaping wound in your case of "nothing to see here."
Spin it all you like. I guess we just disagree then on what makes credible evidence for a case to merely be heard. What I'm saying to you is that the evidence, if presented formally and correctly in front of an uncorrupted judiciary, would have to be heard. A defense team with bottomless pockets (such as Cheney/Halliburton, et al.) most certainly would hem and haw and stall any trial, like you say. But I have little doubt an honest judge would have to let it be heard. No one can say the 9/11 money trail was ever followed to any honest or sensible conclusion.
If you're pretending the toothless 9/11 Commission - which was nothing more than an expensive book deal - held 9/11 to ultimate judgement, you're lying to yourself. There was no judgement. In fact, they started by saying "we will not be assigning blame."
It's really rather goofy of you to keep suggesting I go out and pay for a new investigation all by myself. If this is the extent of your rather nimwitted argument, I suppose we're done here.
When you're ready to grow up and debate the evidence specifics and ready to start being faced with some basic yes/no questions, I'll see you there. But if you're just gonna act utterly butt-headed on a personal level, it's pointless, ... and unfortunately, the forum will see, clear as day that you have no honest retort regarding Ahmad, Moussaoui, Able Danger, the put/calls, NORAD's testimony, or any of the rest of it. And that you're just another dancer, shucker and jiver.
Your move.
This is the best lawl of the thread. You asserting the 9/11 Commission report is somehow "bulletproof" is adorable. The endless omissions are enough to write another 500-page opus. Essential topics like alone, on basic 9/11 topics like Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds, Ahmad, ISI and Omar Seed Sheikh are omited. ... Heck, the two chairmen actually released a book few years ago admitting the investigation dealt with blatant obstruction of justice at every turn, and could do nothing about it. To Kean and Hamilton, the 9/11 was essentially Kean/Hamilton vs. Gonzalez/Zelikow.
Here's more perspective on how "bulletproof" your "tie up loose ends" report was:
Just stop posting. You're a jackass.
You're just stuck on stuipid. Think. When wasn't investigating 9/11 about the markets? It's always been right at the surface of our case about why they did a half-assed job. It's the same reason our government, and its media, doesn't openly admit our impending oil crisis. Newsflash, naive king: Bad news kills consumer confidence. Congress knew the score here.
Here's some metaphor for your block head. I doubt nuance has any affect on your gorilla-like, "bomb'em all, ask questions later" ideology, but try and think about it:
"When a flock of birds suddenly changes direction, simultaneously and uniformly,
is it a conspiracy? Or is it just an instant recognition by every member of the flock
where their collective interests lie?" - MCR
Ah yes, your fall back position.
The "core issue" was never hidden. It smacks you right in the face like a porn cock. The core issue has nothing to do with my own personal finances, and everything to do with the fact that men you admire knew the attacks of 9/11 were coming, and did nothing to stop it, because they wanted it to happen. They admitted their need for nothing less than a new Pearl Harbor in both their PNAC essay, as well as Tri-Lateral founder Zbigniew Brzezinsky's "Grand Chessboard."
Like I said: your profound insecurity isn't belied by statements like this above. Never change, dude.
Those two statements make no sense together. Unless you pretend insecurity is inhibited by anyone with less than $30 million to risk.
Loser, you spend just about every day on here. Don't kid yourself. You don't have anything better to do.
Watch the video, ... or look up the word.
Why do I need to address every retarded, self-explanatory question your feeble mind presents? I'd rather not waste time covering the minutiae of the obvious in order to massage your hyperactive premise, ... but I guess if you're going to keep squawking like a parrot, let's let history shut you down.
The investigation into HUD scandals under Samuel Pierce cost $28 million.
The investigation of Eric Rudolph, the alleged Olympic and abortion clinic bomber cost over $20 million.
CNN.com - Art Harris: The Hunt for Eric Rudolph - July 27, 2001
The cost of the investigation into the crash of TWA flight 800 was about $35 million.
Seeking new light on TWA Flight 800; six years after the jetliner exploded in midair, a group of independent investigators has new evidence and is petitioning the government to reopen the investigation | Insight on the News Newspaper | Find Articles
The cost of recovery and investigation into the Challenger disaster was at least $175 million.
Cost of Columbia Accident Inquiry Is Soaring - Los Angeles Times
Now, considering 9/11 was the greatest crime in U.S. history, and far more wide-reaching and all-encompassing than ANY of those above, it's pretty clear to me that $30-40 million is a gross UNDER-estimation.
What the F are you talking about, twat waffle? Of course you'd have to pay your investigators. That's how federal investigations work, and most CERTAINLY, private investigations.
I've presented an "expert" who has made youtube vids? Are you confusing me with MIHOPers? Wouldn't surprise me that you can't keep your argument straight. You're kinda all over the place in this forum.
Please explain the cost of the investigations listed above then. If not, go fix yourself a nice heaping helping of STFU.
This was never in question, and explains your insecurity to a T. Next time, though, you should actually wait for an answer before running your mouth.
Again, you should really stick with what I type, not what you want to believe my position is or will be. Your straw manning strategy grows boring, and emblematic of your piss-poor argument through out this exchange. The forum continues to laugh at you.
Irony.
Of course, to beacon of light cons like this jaggov above, anyone having less than $30 million is "poor."
Poetic irony.
It's not that you "don't need to." That's the diversion. You never read links that kick the crap out of your hollow assertions. Because then you'd be brought face to face with what a loyalist sheep you really are. If you read the link, or did any actual research of your own, you'd see that the ISI wouldn't exist in it's current capacity without CIA assistance, and U.S. funding. It was the CIA-ISI union that drove the Soviets out of the region 23 years ago.
I did. It's just that you're too belligerant and retarded to acknowledge the FACT that massive investigations like that cost massive amounts of capital.
Wrong. How in the world do you make THAT weak of an anaology? The end game is an honest and thorough investigation. Period. But the time spent HERE is simply catharsis because I enjoy holding RW pablum accountable. People like you are an easy mark. Especially when you actually try and suggest the money trail somehow isn't a gaping wound in your case of "nothing to see here."
Spin it all you like. I guess we just disagree then on what makes credible evidence for a case to merely be heard. What I'm saying to you is that the evidence, if presented formally and correctly in front of an uncorrupted judiciary, would have to be heard. A defense team with bottomless pockets (such as Cheney/Halliburton, et al.) most certainly would hem and haw and stall any trial, like you say. But I have little doubt an honest judge would have to let it be heard. No one can say the 9/11 money trail was ever followed to any honest or sensible conclusion.
If you're pretending the toothless 9/11 Commission - which was nothing more than an expensive book deal - held 9/11 to ultimate judgement, you're lying to yourself. There was no judgement. In fact, they started by saying "we will not be assigning blame."
It's really rather goofy of you to keep suggesting I go out and pay for a new investigation all by myself. If this is the extent of your rather nimwitted argument, I suppose we're done here.
When you're ready to grow up and debate the evidence specifics and ready to start being faced with some basic yes/no questions, I'll see you there. But if you're just gonna act utterly butt-headed on a personal level, it's pointless, ... and unfortunately, the forum will see, clear as day that you have no honest retort regarding Ahmad, Moussaoui, Able Danger, the put/calls, NORAD's testimony, or any of the rest of it. And that you're just another dancer, shucker and jiver.
Your move.
This is the best lawl of the thread. You asserting the 9/11 Commission report is somehow "bulletproof" is adorable. The endless omissions are enough to write another 500-page opus. Essential topics like alone, on basic 9/11 topics like Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds, Ahmad, ISI and Omar Seed Sheikh are omited. ... Heck, the two chairmen actually released a book few years ago admitting the investigation dealt with blatant obstruction of justice at every turn, and could do nothing about it. To Kean and Hamilton, the 9/11 was essentially Kean/Hamilton vs. Gonzalez/Zelikow.
Here's more perspective on how "bulletproof" your "tie up loose ends" report was:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7229/cordesman.html
The last two chapters effectively describe changes in an organizational chart and make very broad recommendations. Anybody who bothers to read them, which tends to be a remarkably few people who are commenting on the report, realizes that you can’t solve problems when you don’t know what you are saying in terms of staff, costs, operating systems, and other details. This is critical because, among other things, when you look through that report, you see vague recommendations about getting rid of the causes of terrorism or about dealing with issues like Islamic extremism or improving the quality of the CIA, which are among the most important recommendations you could make. And then you suddenly realize that this is a paragraph of generalities or cliches with absolutely no operating content at all.
- Anthony H. Cordesman, Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a national security analyst for ABC News on a number of global conflicts. He is a former Professor of National Security Studies at Georgetown University and fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution. ... Cordesman has served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee and civilian assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was also the former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, [1]
The last two chapters effectively describe changes in an organizational chart and make very broad recommendations. Anybody who bothers to read them, which tends to be a remarkably few people who are commenting on the report, realizes that you can’t solve problems when you don’t know what you are saying in terms of staff, costs, operating systems, and other details. This is critical because, among other things, when you look through that report, you see vague recommendations about getting rid of the causes of terrorism or about dealing with issues like Islamic extremism or improving the quality of the CIA, which are among the most important recommendations you could make. And then you suddenly realize that this is a paragraph of generalities or cliches with absolutely no operating content at all.
- Anthony H. Cordesman, Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a national security analyst for ABC News on a number of global conflicts. He is a former Professor of National Security Studies at Georgetown University and fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution. ... Cordesman has served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee and civilian assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was also the former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, [1]
Just stop posting. You're a jackass.
You're just stuck on stuipid. Think. When wasn't investigating 9/11 about the markets? It's always been right at the surface of our case about why they did a half-assed job. It's the same reason our government, and its media, doesn't openly admit our impending oil crisis. Newsflash, naive king: Bad news kills consumer confidence. Congress knew the score here.
Here's some metaphor for your block head. I doubt nuance has any affect on your gorilla-like, "bomb'em all, ask questions later" ideology, but try and think about it:
"When a flock of birds suddenly changes direction, simultaneously and uniformly,
is it a conspiracy? Or is it just an instant recognition by every member of the flock
where their collective interests lie?" - MCR
Ah yes, your fall back position.
The "core issue" was never hidden. It smacks you right in the face like a porn cock. The core issue has nothing to do with my own personal finances, and everything to do with the fact that men you admire knew the attacks of 9/11 were coming, and did nothing to stop it, because they wanted it to happen. They admitted their need for nothing less than a new Pearl Harbor in both their PNAC essay, as well as Tri-Lateral founder Zbigniew Brzezinsky's "Grand Chessboard."
Like I said: your profound insecurity isn't belied by statements like this above. Never change, dude.
Those two statements make no sense together. Unless you pretend insecurity is inhibited by anyone with less than $30 million to risk.
Loser, you spend just about every day on here. Don't kid yourself. You don't have anything better to do.
Watch the video, ... or look up the word.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump touts $9 trillion in new U.S. investment. The numbers don't add up.- Started by IM2
- Replies: 0
-
Almost half of Gazans willing to leave, survey finds
- Started by toomuchtime_
- Replies: 1
-
-
