Which 9-11 theory you believe?

[eots]

why does cuntycorn pretend there is but one first responder that tells willies story ???

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kYs4fWaMO4&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MG5vPoV54[/ame]

 

[JiggsCasey]

i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a ******* idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a ******* idiot. if you dont want to be called a ******* idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.

I see. So anyone demanding a real investigation into the greatest crime in U.S. history, rather than one controlled by a Bush League lackey, is somehow a "******* idiot."

Gear down, torrets sufferer.

somebody clearly dropped the ball. that does not equate to "letting it happen on purpose" and having clearly sinister intentions.

Yes, there was an awful lot of ball-dropping by your heroes. And not a single reprimand, let alone incarceration. In fact, Frasca and Tenet got promotions! How awesome.

Any way you wanna slice it, no one was held accountable, and the Memo wasn't even addressed in the "Zelikow" report (9/11 Commission). Screams of white-washing, and you know it.

What kind of investigation starts with "we will not be assigning blame...."?

so now the ISI is part of the american government?!!

This shows how incredibly dumb you are, despite running your mouth in this thread with such unrivaled arrogance. Why don't you read a book before pontificating? Might help you avoid looking like such as ass.

The CIA MADE the ISI. Mahmoud was IN the U.S. during the attacks.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ISI-since-9/11-Report/articleshow/5235067.cms

How could the 9/11 Commission not even acknowledge the wire transfer to Atta? What kind of investigation into any crime doesn't even follow the money trail?

ok, now prove who did the trading. otherwise your just throwing shit against the wall hoping something sticks.

It is beyond clear you have absolutely zero idea how an investigation works, and how a team gathers circumstantial and direct evidence. You follow the money trail, and exhaust all avenues for where the information originated. That doesn't mean those responsible for the trading were "in on it," but rather that they might have information on who did.

The SEC's heavily redacted report on the matter blacks out the entire entry into who advised the put options. The 9/11 Commission, in one lame paragraph, determined essentially: "the SEC cleared their list of terrorist suspects, and said everything checked out A-OK here in the U.S., so, good enough for us."

you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?

still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!

The evidence is abundant, and you've even conceded some of it. Incompetence or willful complicity, either way, no heads rolled. Why? Because anyone who went to jail for 9/11 would have sung like a canary.

Hell, even the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission admitted that NORAD and the SEC were not totally honest with them during testimony.

It is interesting that the investigation into Bill Clinton's oval office throating received three times the financing than did the "investigation" into the greatest crime in U.S. history.

Your heroes "screwed up", at best, and let it happen on purpose, at worst. You can't stand that fact, so you have an internet meltdown on a daily basis.

Come back when you garner some semblance of a clue what constitutes an indictment and subpoena power, two things the Zelikow report stonewalled against.

 

[candycorn]

i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a ******* idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a ******* idiot. if you dont want to be called a ******* idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.

I see. So anyone demanding a real investigation into the greatest crime in U.S. history, rather than one controlled by a Bush League lackey, is somehow a "******* idiot."

Gear down, torrets sufferer.

somebody clearly dropped the ball. that does not equate to "letting it happen on purpose" and having clearly sinister intentions.

Yes, there was an awful lot of ball-dropping by your heroes. And not a single reprimand, let alone incarceration. In fact, Frasca and Tenet got promotions! How awesome.

Any way you wanna slice it, no one was held accountable, and the Memo wasn't even addressed in the "Zelikow" report (9/11 Commission). Screams of white-washing, and you know it.

What kind of investigation starts with "we will not be assigning blame...."?



This shows how incredibly dumb you are, despite running your mouth in this thread with such unrivaled arrogance. Why don't you read a book before pontificating? Might help you avoid looking like such as ass.

The CIA MADE the ISI. Mahmoud was IN the U.S. during the attacks.

CIA paid millions of dollars to ISI since 9/11: Report - The Times of India

How could the 9/11 Commission not even acknowledge the wire transfer to Atta? What kind of investigation into any crime doesn't even follow the money trail?



It is beyond clear you have absolutely zero idea how an investigation works, and how a team gathers circumstantial and direct evidence. You follow the money trail, and exhaust all avenues for where the information originated. That doesn't mean those responsible for the trading were "in on it," but rather that they might have information on who did.

The SEC's heavily redacted report on the matter blacks out the entire entry into who advised the put options. The 9/11 Commission, in one lame paragraph, determined essentially: "the SEC cleared their list of terrorist suspects, and said everything checked out A-OK here in the U.S., so, good enough for us."

you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?

still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!

The evidence is abundant, and you've even conceded some of it. Incompetence or willful complicity, either way, no heads rolled. Why? Because anyone who went to jail for 9/11 would have sung like a canary.

Hell, even the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission admitted that NORAD and the SEC were not totally honest with them during testimony.

It is interesting that the investigation into Bill Clinton's oval office throating received three times the financing than did the "investigation" into the greatest crime in U.S. history.

Your heroes "screwed up", at best, and let it happen on purpose, at worst. You can't stand that fact, so you have an internet meltdown on a daily basis.

Come back when you garner some semblance of a clue what constitutes an indictment and subpoena power, two things the Zelikow report stonewalled against.

Really? What promotion did George Tenet receive? Come back when you feel like telling the truth for a change.

 

[Fizz]

i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a ******* idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a ******* idiot. if you dont want to be called a ******* idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.

I see. So anyone demanding a real investigation into the greatest crime in U.S. history, rather than one controlled by a Bush League lackey, is somehow a "******* idiot."

Gear down, torrets sufferer.

somebody clearly dropped the ball. that does not equate to "letting it happen on purpose" and having clearly sinister intentions.

Yes, there was an awful lot of ball-dropping by your heroes. And not a single reprimand, let alone incarceration. In fact, Frasca and Tenet got promotions! How awesome.

Any way you wanna slice it, no one was held accountable, and the Memo wasn't even addressed in the "Zelikow" report (9/11 Commission). Screams of white-washing, and you know it.

What kind of investigation starts with "we will not be assigning blame...."?



This shows how incredibly dumb you are, despite running your mouth in this thread with such unrivaled arrogance. Why don't you read a book before pontificating? Might help you avoid looking like such as ass.

The CIA MADE the ISI. Mahmoud was IN the U.S. during the attacks.

CIA paid millions of dollars to ISI since 9/11: Report - The Times of India

How could the 9/11 Commission not even acknowledge the wire transfer to Atta? What kind of investigation into any crime doesn't even follow the money trail?



It is beyond clear you have absolutely zero idea how an investigation works, and how a team gathers circumstantial and direct evidence. You follow the money trail, and exhaust all avenues for where the information originated. That doesn't mean those responsible for the trading were "in on it," but rather that they might have information on who did.

The SEC's heavily redacted report on the matter blacks out the entire entry into who advised the put options. The 9/11 Commission, in one lame paragraph, determined essentially: "the SEC cleared their list of terrorist suspects, and said everything checked out A-OK here in the U.S., so, good enough for us."

you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?

still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!

The evidence is abundant, and you've even conceded some of it. Incompetence or willful complicity, either way, no heads rolled. Why? Because anyone who went to jail for 9/11 would have sung like a canary.

Hell, even the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission admitted that NORAD and the SEC were not totally honest with them during testimony.

It is interesting that the investigation into Bill Clinton's oval office throating received three times the financing than did the "investigation" into the greatest crime in U.S. history.

Your heroes "screwed up", at best, and let it happen on purpose, at worst. You can't stand that fact, so you have an internet meltdown on a daily basis.

Come back when you garner some semblance of a clue what constitutes an indictment and subpoena power, two things the Zelikow report stonewalled against.

another ******* moron chimes in with absurd conclusions. here's a list of stupid ******* assumptions made in just this one post.

1. you wrongly assume to know who my heroes are. FAIL!
2. you assume people should be jailed over the contents of a memo. FAIL!
3. even if the CIA actually made the ISI it is a huge leap to say the cia knows every move done by the Pakistan's ISI. FAIL!
4. that the wire transfer in question actually took place, that the cia controlled the ISI to tell Ahmad to tell Sheikh to send the money to Atta. FAIL!
4. you assume that unusual trading activity before 9/11 is because of foreknowledge of 9/11 with no evidence. FAIL!

basically, your absurd theory is that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks because no heads rolled.

i have an "internet meltdown"?!! HAHAHAHahahahaa!!!1 are you ******* serious?!! you cant buy comedy as good as you twoofers provide. i laugh my ass off every day looking at you dumbfucks explain stupid shit about your absurd theories!!

 

[CurveLight]

You can't even admit the conclusion of the NIST report saying fire alone brought down wtc 7...........who the **** is dumb enough to think you would be honest enough to address any facts when you blatantly ignore the facts of your own position? Lol!

Funny how no other OCTAs had the balls to call you out on such an obvious **** up or like when retiredgunnygutlesssack falsely claimed the diesel tanks helped cause the collapse. You punks always ignore it when you **** up because you are dishonest cowards.

show me where the NIST reports says "fires alone" caused the collapse, you lying ******* moron.

I quoted the lead NIST investigator at least twice and both times you completely ignored it as well as the other info from the faq. The N Report clearly says even if there was no damage from falling debris it still would have collapsed and it states the diesel tanks did not contribute to the collapse. You ignore these basic facts and call people liars because you are a sad individual.

 

[Gamolon]

They don't quote the nist report like the bible. They ignore that and any other official report any time it says something they don't like.

It's so amazing that you and Fizz and Candycorn and SGT and Divecon, won't hesitate for a moment to squeal about how I am wrong about FACTUAL evidence, yet they provide NO LINKS, NO PROOF of anything they claim.


How can Candycon claim to post facts for me, without any source or proof of credibility. Then have the audacity to claim that MY sources are false, and still provide no proof to their claim other than their squalking mouth.

Watch this video: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8efGoRSLUG8[/ame]

I would take an eyewitness' FIRST response to being far more truthful, than later on having time to think about what they said and change it to fit what others saw, or what they were told to say they saw.

Also, please do explain how building 7 was still standing in the back of the repoerter while BBC was taling about it already being collapsed? Or do you only address the things you have lies to?

How come you never addressed the points I made concerning Terral's WTC7 theory? You asked for a point by point discussion, which I gave you. You posted one thing back, changed the subject, and then never returned...

Why is that?

 

[CurveLight]

Troofers like you are an embarrassment. I was pointing out they don't quote official reports as you claimed and you «BARF» have the audacity to put me in the same boat with them. **** you.

I am not putting you "in the same boat". Somehow I clicked on the wrong section of the thread. I am quite sure the "idiots" are enjoying that also.

I know it probably won't do much good, but I apologise to you. I mistakingly included you when I should not have.

I'm still having a hard time navigating around here.

Thank you and sorry I went off.

 

[CurveLight]

I've perused several sites speaking about WTC 7 and the most common item I saw was the narrative beginning with massive destruction from the Towers collapsing. Passing out the info in that way misleads people into believing something other than fire alone is what caused the collapse.

The point? NIST's final conclusion is so ******* embarrassing almost nobody wants to own or defend it.

 

[Fizz]

I quoted the lead NIST investigator at least twice and both times you completely ignored it as well as the other info from the faq.

and you still didnt show where in the report it says "fires alone" caused the collapse because it doesnt say that. you lied. you jsut keep repeating the same old twoofer bullshit over and over again.

The N Report clearly says even if there was no damage from falling debris it still would have collapsed and it states the diesel tanks did not contribute to the collapse.

i'm not disputing that, jackass.

You ignore these basic facts and call people liars because you are a sad individual.

i'm not ignoring it at all. saying damage played no significant role other than starting the fires and that the diesel tank didnt make a significant contribution does not equate to "fires alone" caused the collapse. i dont know why you twoofers insist on changing what is actually in the NIST report.

here is what the NIST actually says:

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7’s collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

 

[eots]

the last part is pure double talk it is like saying the fact it was built contributed to the collapse...no fault was found in the design of the wtc 7

 

[eots]

Did WTC 7 conform to building and fire codes?


The team found that the design of WTC 7 in the 1980s was generally consistent with the New York City building code in effect at that time.
WTC 7's designers intended its stairwells to evacuate nearly 14,000 occupants, anticipated at the time to be the maximum occupancy of the building. Though the stairwell's capacity was overestimated, it was adequate for evacuating the building's actual maximum occupancy of 8,000, and more than adequate to evacuate the approximately 4,000 occupants who were in the building on Sept. 11.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[Fizz]

the last part is pure double talk it is like saying the fact it was built contributed to the collapse...no fault was found in the design of the wtc 7

why do you feel the need to interpret what the NISt report says into something else? why do you try to make it conform to your pre-drawn conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

first you say that the NIST stated "fires alone" caused the collapse. thats a lie. now that i have posted what they actually say you call it "double talk".

why dont you take your absurd claims a step further and say that "planes alone" caused the collapse??.... because without the planes crashing into the towers there would have been no fire and when the towers collapsed the fires would not have spread to wtc7.

i guess the only reason you dont take your absurd assumptions to that step is it doesnt make it sound more like an "inside job" that way.

the NIST did a fine job explaining their findings. they dont need a ******* stoned twoofer to interpret the findings for them.

 

[CurveLight]

I quoted the lead NIST investigator at least twice and both times you completely ignored it as well as the other info from the faq.

and you still didnt show where in the report it says "fires alone" caused the collapse because it doesnt say that. you lied. you jsut keep repeating the same old twoofer bullshit over and over again.

The N Report clearly says even if there was no damage from falling debris it still would have collapsed and it states the diesel tanks did not contribute to the collapse.

i'm not disputing that, jackass.

You ignore these basic facts and call people liars because you are a sad individual.

i'm not ignoring it at all. saying damage played no significant role other than starting the fires and that the diesel tank didnt make a significant contribution does not equate to "fires alone" caused the collapse. i dont know why you twoofers insist on changing what is actually in the NIST report.

here is what the NIST actually says:

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7’s collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

Hahahahaha........you're such a jackass. Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire. Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it. So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass. Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?

 

[CurveLight]

the last part is pure double talk it is like saying the fact it was built contributed to the collapse...no fault was found in the design of the wtc 7

why do you feel the need to interpret what the NISt report says into something else? why do you try to make it conform to your pre-drawn conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

first you say that the NIST stated "fires alone" caused the collapse. thats a lie. now that i have posted what they actually say you call it "double talk".

why dont you take your absurd claims a step further and say that "planes alone" caused the collapse??.... because without the planes crashing into the towers there would have been no fire and when the towers collapsed the fires would not have spread to wtc7.

i guess the only reason you dont take your absurd assumptions to that step is it doesnt make it sound more like an "inside job" that way.

the NIST did a fine job explaining their findings. they dont need a ******* stoned twoofer to interpret the findings for them.

Hahahahahaha.....he didn't say everything you posted was double talk. He said "the last part." Thank you for proving to everyone that since you can't read a short simple post then there is no way in hell your dumbass can understand N's Report.

It's pretty obvious the reason you're so hell bent on ignoring N's conclusion that fire alone cause the collapse is because you know it's laughable so you have to change N's conclusion to fit your pre-conceived opinions.

 

[Fizz]

Hahahahaha........you're such a jackass. Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire. Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it. So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass. Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?

are you too ******* stupid to see the fault in your retarded twoofer logic?

so now the only three possibilities a building has of collapsing are fire, damage from failling towers or diesel tanks?

thats simply moronic. stop changing what the NIST report actually says to try to fit your own twoofer agenda. it says fire was the primary cause. it DOES NOT say fires alone caused the collapse. you are a ******* moronic liar to claim it does.

 

[eots]

so name one factor other than fire nist refers to as.. cause

 

[Fizz]

so name one factor other than fire nist refers to as.. cause

look up about seven posts, you stoned ******* idiot. you already replied to what the NIST report says were the causes.

 

[CurveLight]

Hahahahaha........you're such a jackass. Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire. Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it. So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass. Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?

are you too ******* stupid to see the fault in your retarded twoofer logic?

so now the only three possibilities a building has of collapsing are fire, damage from failling towers or diesel tanks?

thats simply moronic. stop changing what the NIST report actually says to try to fit your own twoofer agenda. it says fire was the primary cause. it DOES NOT say fires alone caused the collapse. you are a ******* moronic liar to claim it does.

Is this why you like the internet so much? So you can act like a tough guy while being a completely dihonest **********? If you'll notice, even your octa buddies aren't ******* dumb enough to try and change N's Report like you are. You repeatedly ignored what I quoted from the lead investigator because you could not spin it to your view. You loved citing Popular Mechanics to defend the OCT but when PM says something you don't like suddenly it is not a source you care about. I don't know how slimy butt munchers like you breathe without choking on your own shit.

 

[CurveLight]

so name one factor other than fire nist refers to as.. cause

look up about seven posts, you stoned ******* idiot. you already replied to what the NIST report says were the causes.

You can't name one factor so you continue embarrassing yourself. Here's some more for you to ignore:

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down. ”

--NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder.

 

[Hollybaere]

I think that these pages explain the truth about building 7 quite accurately, and makes the NIST version look like the Fairy Tale that it has been proven to be.



Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: Building 7's Location


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Fires in Building 7


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Vertical Collapse of Building 7


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: Building 7's Rubble Pile


The Silence Surrounding Building 7
The American public was treated to wall-to-wall television coverage of the September 11th attack throughout the day and for nearly the entire following week. Yet most Americans remember only two skyscrapers collapsing in Lower Manhattan on the day of the attack: the Twin Towers. The total collapse of the third huge skyscraper late in the afternoon of September 11th was reported as if it were an insignificant footnote. The television networks played video of the jets impacting the Twin Towers hundreds of times. But most people never saw video of Building 7's collapse.

Building 7 was neither hit by an airplane nor, apparently, by heavy fallout from the collapse of either of the Twin Towers. If you believe the official story that it collapsed from fires, it would be the first case in history in which fires induced the total collapse of a steel-framed building. Shouldn't that have been newsworthy, given its implications for building safety and rescue and firefighting operations? Incredibly, it is difficult to find any mention of Building 7 in newspapers, magazines, or broadcast media reports about the September 11th attack.

The collapse of Building 7 was reported on 9/11/2001, apparently by all or most of the television networks. These reports were so obscure that it was not until 2007 that researchers discovered that the BBC and CNN had announced the collapse before it occurred.

Despite the enormity of this event, there is no mention of it in a timetable of press flashes, alerts, and bulletins from the day of and after the attack compiled by the Associated Press. 1