WTC7 Press Conference 10AM CDT

[ChumpDumper]

I'm shocked the resident non-conspiracy theorist didn't start this one earlier.

http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=lobby.jsp&eventid=117359&sessionid=1&key=17480F564B916A0A9CA3CFB3EE5BDDA2&eventuserid=18851763

Looks like the slideshow will be shown separately alongside the speaker's presentation. Cool.

[clambake]

chumper just dropped the chum in the water.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm waiting to see if any CT folk come forth in the public comment portion.

In the interest of fairness, I will also give a link to the nutjobs who will hold a teleconference right after the NIST presentation refuting the results of a report that has yet to be released:

http://www.ae911truth.org/actionalerts/

[ChumpDumper]

:lol It took 15 minutes for someone to mention THERMATE!

[ChumpDumper]

Microspheres!

[clambake]

Microspheres!

please delete this post. i've got 3M stock.

[ChumpDumper]

OMG, I'm listening to a conspiracy non-theory song on this link to the nutjob conference webcast.

Anthemic...

[RandomGuy]

Microspheres!

http://image.com.com/tv/images/processed/thumb/b2/96/9895.jpg

FAIRIES!!

[ChumpDumper]

The nutjob is going on about molten metal observed weeks after the collapse in the rubble pile.

Apparently THERM*TE burns for months, and the NWO used a whole lot more than they needed to make rivers of molten steel.

[RandomGuy]

Fairy God Parents did it!

http://icons.iconator.com/875/ICONATOR_a399b2b7477f83749473fbe326153c3f.gif

G.W. Bush has fairy god parents!!

[DarkReign]

Keep us at work posted, CD.

[ChumpDumper]

The highlight is this song that they are repeating now.

The truthers just rehashed everything they have been saying for years.

THERMITE!

They're upset that NIST dismissed that theory when they couldn't think of a practical way of holding hundreds of pounds of thermite in constant contact with the column it is supposed to melt.

[DarkReign]

Wait, I thought this was a government-snctioned press conference...

This is some truther conference?!

Fuck, nevermind....

[ChumpDumper]

The NIST conference was at 10, then the truthers had theirs right after.

The NIST summary was that fires caused uneven thermal expansion in the composite floors, and that either collapsed the floors or caused them to push on the columns. Enough of this happened around a column 79 to cause it to buckle and fail, then the redistributed loads overwhelmed the other columns. The collapse then progressed both vertically and horizontally.

I don't know if the NIST conference was archived, but the slideshow used can be found here:

http://event.on24.com/event/11/73/59/rt/1/documents/slidepdf/wtc_7_news__briefing_082008_final_v2.pdf

Here is the NIST presenter's comment on their consideration of explosive controlled demolition:

"Before I tell you what we found, I’d like to tell you what we did not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. We ran detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios. What you see in this slide are the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly
loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses."

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, and I found the song:

4ZBefrTszxU

Priceless.

[DarrinS]

That reminds me, did they ever determine if that frozen Bigfoot was real?

[DarkReign]

That reminds me, did they ever determine if that frozen Bigfoot was real?

Fraud.

[101A]

Oh, and I found the song:

4ZBefrTszxU

Priceless.

:downspin::rollin:bang

[Galileo]

This is a sad day in American history.

[IceColdBrewski]

This is a sad day in American history.

You're pissed about the womens softball team losing too? I thought it was just me.

[DarrinS]

This is a sad day in American history.


For you and your sad, pathetic ilk, it is indeed.

[Galileo]

March 12, 1610 - Scientific Revolution begins - Science replaces superstition- Galileo publishes the Starry Messenger.

August 21, 2008 - The Scientific Revolution ends - Superstition replaces science - NIST publishes Report on WTC 7.

It was a good run, almost 400 years.

[ChumpDumper]

Your brain is an iron-rich microsphere.

[RandomGuy]

March 12, 1610 - Scientific Revolution begins - Science replaces superstition- Galileo publishes the Starry Messenger.

August 21, 2008 - The Scientific Revolution ends - Superstition replaces science - NIST publishes Report on WTC 7.

It was a good run, almost 400 years.

Fuck.

Tard.

The scientific method is to take a hypothesis and test it against observed phenomenon.

In this case, the NIST tested the “explosives” hypothesis.

They calculated the minimum amount of force and explosives needed to reasonably destroy enough structure to collapse the building.

Surprisingly they came to a common sense conclusion that the amount of explosives required would have been heard for miles as a sharp report, to say nothing of sending glass and debris in all directions at thousands of feet per second.

The truther response: since they can’t go with something that is loud, they go with Thermite.

Ok, fine.

How the fuck was the thermite held to the column long enough to melt it?

Dude the thermite grenades they gave us in the military to disable equipment burns straight DOWN. They tell us simply to put them on top of shit and let it burn DOWN through.

HOW DID THE MAGIC DEMOLITION FAIRIES ATTACH THE MOLTEN THERMIT TO THE VERTICAL COLUMNS?

[ChumpDumper]

The presser will be online tomorrow, but all the major points (minus the entertaining twoofer questions) can be found in the videos on this page:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

[Galileo]

Fuck.

Tard.

The scientific method is to take a hypothesis and test it against observed phenomenon.

In this case, the NIST tested the “explosives” hypothesis.

They calculated the minimum amount of force and explosives needed to reasonably destroy enough structure to collapse the building.

Surprisingly they came to a common sense conclusion that the amount of explosives required would have been heard for miles as a sharp report, to say nothing of sending glass and debris in all directions at thousands of feet per second.

The truther response: since they can’t go with something that is loud, they go with Thermite.

Ok, fine.

How the fuck was the thermite held to the column long enough to melt it?

Dude the thermite grenades they gave us in the military to disable equipment burns straight DOWN. They tell us simply to put them on top of shit and let it burn DOWN through.

HOW DID THE MAGIC DEMOLITION FAIRIES ATTACH THE MOLTEN THERMIT TO THE VERTICAL COLUMNS?

geez! you sound mighty superstitous today!

[RandomGuy]

geez! you sound mighty superstitous today!

How did the magic demolition fairies attach the thermite to the vertical columns?

[ChumpDumper]

geez! you sound mighty superstitous today!Geez! You sound mighty delusional every day!

[Galileo]

How did the magic demolition fairies attach the thermite to the vertical columns?

that's not a scientific question.

Science has been corrupted by the government, which controls the money and the media. They have been putting out a steady stream bogus science. Liberals have stopped the scientific revolution. First, bogus global warning scares; then they told us that second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as the Black death; and now an office fire takes down a steel building. What's next?

[ChumpDumper]

that's not a scientific question.

Science has been corrupted by the government, which controls the money and the media. They have been putting out a steady stream bogus science. Liberals have stopped the scientific revolution. First, bogus global warning scares; then they told us that second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as the Black death; and now an office fire takes down a steel building. What's next?That's not a scientific statement.

[CubanMustGo]

that's not a scientific question.

Science has been corrupted by the government, which controls the money and the media. They have been putting out a steady stream bogus science. Liberals have stopped the scientific revolution. First, bogus global warning scares; then they told us that second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as the Black death; and now an office fire takes down a steel building. What's next?

Don't worry about the black helicopters, then.

[RandomGuy]

that's not a scientific question.

Science has been corrupted by the government, which controls the money and the media. They have been putting out a steady stream bogus science. Liberals have stopped the scientific revolution. First, bogus global warning scares; then they told us that second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as the Black death; and now an office fire takes down a steel building. What's next?

You're right.

That was a sarcastic question.

A scientific question would be:

"What is the minimium amount of force needed to take out the vertical columns if one wanted to demolish the buildings?"

Answer that please.

Then go on to calculate the total amount of say, C4, that would have been required. I would like that answer too.

"If you contend that thermite, not explosives, were used, then how much thermite would have been required?"

This is your theory. Please fill it out a little for me.

[xtremesteven33]

conspiracy theorists dont claim to know the answers, we just question the official ones.

[Galileo]

defending innocent people who are innocent until proven guilty is NOT a conspiracy theory. And WTC 7 has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory unless you've cooked one up I've not heard yet.

[ChumpDumper]

defending innocent people who are innocent until proven guilty is NOT a conspiracy theory.I haven't read your impassioned defense of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Could you provide a link to that?

[xtremesteven33]

defending innocent people who are innocent until proven guilty is NOT a conspiracy theory. And WTC 7 has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory unless you've cooked one up I've not heard yet.




the strange thing about building 7 is HOW and WHY it fell down. it burned for less hours then both WTC 1 & 2 but yell fell down the exact same way they did. some responses ive heard are,

"parts of WTC 1 & 2 fell on building 7 therfore causing it to fall."

ok, but what makes this theory any better than ours? there is no way of proving it and yet they say its a valid reason.

our questionings could often be misrepresented as us having the answers. which some people claim to have but if they were to say it they would be laughed and mocked. which is expected cause i guess people expect to hear the media admit it was the US Government who orchestrated the attacks i guess.

[RandomGuy]

Funny thing about explosives. They propel things very, very fast.

Truthers make a lot of noises about how "squibs" and so forth ejected material.

One of them even did a calculation of exactly how fast the material from these "squibs" was ejected. This came out in the order of a few hundred feet per second.

The scientific explanation of this is that there was simply enough of a piston effect in the collapsing building to cause air overOverpressure to eject material at the terminal floors of some elevator shafts.

This would produce an airburst of a few hundred feet per second.

Ask any explosives expert what kinds of debris velocities are generated by actual explosives.

You get answers in the thousands of feet per second.

Funny thing is that I saw a myth-busters episode recently that highlighted this perfectly.

They simulated a pirate ship to find whether a cannonball shot through a wooden ship hull would produce enough splinters to kill people.

The first thing they tried was a BIG air cannon. The best muzzle velocity they could get was a bit shy of two hundred feet per second.

Oddly enough, cannons use explosives to propel shells. Old fashioned black powder in this case was used in the civil-war era cannon that they used to test the cannonball velocity next. The muzzle velocity they got with actual explosives was over 700 feet per second if memory serves.

We can reasonably assume semtex/C4/etc are a bit more powerful than old fashioned gunpowder.

So, if the buildings were demolished using actual explosives you would have glass and small debris shooting sideways at thousands of feet per second, scattering lethal debris over many SQUARE MILES of upper manhattan.

My next scientific question is:

Do we have reports of this expected phenomenon? Does the controlled demolition theory accurately reflect what was actually observed?

I have yet to see reports of anybody being hit with collapse debris from miles away.

Maybe Galileo can provide one?

[RandomGuy]

conspiracy theorists dont claim to know the answers, we just question the official ones.

There is a vast gulf between honest questions, and throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

I am tired of ducking shit.

[xtremesteven33]

There is a vast gulf between honest questions, and throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

I am tired of ducking shit.



haha....i guess u think the majority of "conspiracy theorists" are blithering idiots who conjur up retarted questions out of thin air?


truly the idiots are people who dont question and believe anything the media tells them.

[ChumpDumper]

the strange thing about building 7 is HOW and WHY it fell down. it burned for less hours then both WTC 1 & 2 but yell fell down the exact same way they did.
Both parts of that last sentence are untrue. WTC 7 burned longer than the twin towers and its collapse initiated internally and was not a top-down collapse that originated at the perimeter like those of the twin towers.


some responses ive heard are,

"parts of WTC 1 & 2 fell on building 7 therfore causing it to fall."
Really it was just WTC 1 that started the fires that the NIST concluded to be the sole cause of the collapse.


ok, but what makes this theory any better than ours?
I don't know what other people's theories are. They never give a full one.


there is no way of proving it and yet they say its a valid reason.
The main way to do this now is with computer modeling. The one's shown in the NIST videos are pretty impressive. i have yet to see anything from the alternative non-theorists.


our questionings could often be misrepresented as us having the answers. which some people claim to have but if they were to say it they would be laughed and mocked. which is expected cause i guess people expect to hear the media admit it was the US Government who orchestrated the attacks i guess.
I would just like to hear an actual alternative theory about the entirety of events on 9/11. I have even dedicated a thread to it. No one has stepped up.

[xtremesteven33]

i remember talking about this with you.

i gave an explanation before.

Explosives brought down the towers

thats the alternate theory! whats so hard to understand about that.
Larry Silverstein said he decided to "pull it" and BBC News reported the building fell even before it collapsed!! its easy to smell conspiracy here. and you are not unamerican for questioning the official story either.

what more do you need!?

[Galileo]

The Single Column Theory

move over, single bullet theory....

Now we have the SINGLE COLUMN THEORY!

Nist Final Report Uses Fire/ Single Column Failure(column 79)/Thermal Expansion?http://www.911blogger.com/node/17260

That's right! A single column, just one of 81 columns in WTC 7, took it down! WTC 7 was a house of cards.

[Of course, if a single column could take down WTC 7, then it would be easy to target that column and take it out with explosives.]

[ChumpDumper]

i remember talking about this with you.

i gave an explanation before.

Explosives brought down the towers

thats the alternate theory! whats so hard to understand about that.It has nothing to do with the Pentagon or Shanksville, for starters.


Larry Silverstein said he decided to "pull it"
"Pull it" is not a term used for explosive demolition.


and BBC News reported the building fell even before it collapsed!! its easy to smell conspiracy here. and you are not unamerican for questioning the official story either.

what more do you need!?Perpetrators, motive, methods, evidence. I'm not asking for 10,000 pages like the NIST has produced -- just more than "It was Cheney in WTC 7 with the thermite."

[ChumpDumper]

The Single Column Theory

move over, single bullet theory....

Now we have the SINGLE COLUMN THEORY!

Nist Final Report Uses Fire/ Single Column Failure(column 79)/Thermal Expansion?http://www.911blogger.com/node/17260

That's right! A single column, just one of 81 columns in WTC 7, took it down! WTC 7 was a house of cards.

[Of course, if a single column could take down WTC 7, then it would be easy to target that column and take it out with explosives.]How would anyone know to target that one column beforehand if it took six years to conclude it was the one that failed?

And the NIST calculated how big a charge would be needed in case anyone had actually figured out that Column 79 was the one needed to bring it all down --

-- and no one heard or recorded anything close to the sound that kind of charge would create. They studied your little theory, and it failed.

[Galileo]

It has nothing to do with the Pentagon or Shanksville, for starters.


"Pull it" is not a term used for explosive demolition.

Perpetrators, motive, methods, evidence. I'm not asking for 10,000 pages like the NIST has produced -- just more than "It was Cheney in WTC 7 with the thermite."

"pull it"

this is a term used in the homosexual underworld, first by Clay Shaw, and now by out of the closet Larry Craig.

Silverstein was using this homosexual imagery when he said "pull it" and ordered WTC 7 taken down in an obvious insurance job.

[Galileo]

How would anyone know to target that one column beforehand if it took six years to conclude it was the one that failed?

And the NIST calculated how big a charge would be needed in case anyone had actually figured out that Column 79 was the one needed to bring it all down --

-- and no one heard or recorded anything close to the sound that kind of charge would create. They studied your little theory, and it failed.

NIST says a small office fire can take out column # 79, but not explosive charges.

[ChumpDumper]

"pull it"

this is a term used in the homosexual underworld, first by Clay Shaw, and now by out of the closet Larry Craig.

Silverstein was using this homosexual imagery when he said "pull it" and ordered WTC 7 taken down in an obvious insurance job.So, you are saying it was the jooooooooooooooooooos now?

Make up your mind.

[ChumpDumper]

NIST says a small office fire can take out column # 79, but not explosive charges.It wasn't a small fire.

There were no such explosions heard before the collapse like any CD you have seen on YouTube.

[Galileo]

It wasn't a small fire.

There were no such explosions heard before the collapse like any CD you have seen on YouTube.

according to NIST, it was a small fire. Thermite doesn't make loud noises.

Also, NIST never studied column # 79, so basically, their theory is bullshit.

[Galileo]

So, you are saying it was the jooooooooooooooooooos now?

Make up your mind.

who's Joe?

[ChumpDumper]

according to NIST, it was a small fire. Thermite doesn't make loud noises.NIST did not say it was a small fire. Thermite doesn't work sideways.


Also, NIST never studied column # 79, so basically, their theory is bullshit.Did you study column #79? No? Then by your definition, any theory you come up with is bullshit.

Way to kick your own ass.

[ChumpDumper]

who's Joe?Jew.

You blame the jew.

At least in that post you did. You'll pull something else out of your ass any second now.

[Galileo]

Jew.

You blame the jew.

At least in that post you did. You'll pull something else out of your ass any second now.

Clay Shaw or Larry Craig?

[Galileo]

NIST did not say it was a small fire. Thermite doesn't work sideways.

Did you study column #79? No? Then by your definition, any theory you come up with is bullshit.

Way to kick your own ass.

if you tip thermite 90 degrees, it will work sideways.

[ChumpDumper]

if you tip thermite 90 degrees, it will work sideways.Nope, it will always work in the direction of gravity.

You need to change your screen name. Gallileo would never make such a stupid mistake regarding gravity.

[Galileo]

Nope, it will always work in the direction of gravity.

You need to change your screen name. Gallileo would never make such a stupid mistake regarding gravity.

not in WTC 7. Things are different in WTC 7.

WTC 7 fall down.

[ChumpDumper]

not in WTC 7. Things are different in WTC 7.

WTC 7 fall down.You're a fucking idiot.

[Galileo]

You're a fucking idiot.

Dr. Ivins took out WTC 7, then dropped off the anthrax at the local post.

He's a mad scientist.

[ChumpDumper]

I can only conclude that you are mentally ill.

In addition to being a fucking idiot.

[Galileo]

I can only conclude that you are mentally ill.

In addition to being a fucking idiot.

global warming heated column # 79, expanding it, and WTC 7 fall down.

Gore did it!

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, you're insane.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Someone could have a paper towel drenched in mecos, bind it between hardcover, and label it "Commission Report" and I really do think ChumpDumper would feel even more self righteous about his 9/11 takes.

[ChumpDumper]

Say CBF, what do you think really happened to WTC 7?

And today's report was not a commission report.

[Cry Havoc]

Someone could have a paper towel drenched in mecos, bind it between hardcover, and label it "Commission Report" and I really do think ChumpDumper would feel even more self righteous about the scientifically researched 9/11 takes which are the only theories to list evidence, computer modeling, and plausible explanations as to what happened. Or even any one of those three.

Fixed that for you.

[Nbadan]

After 7 years the FEDS say friendly fire brought down WTC7...anyone surprised?

Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers By DEVLIN BARRETT



Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Popular Mechanics still has a debunking story on their Web site, to wit, there was so much damage to the south face of WTC7 (they alone saw secret photos they could not share with anyone else), that it was obvious that's why it fell down. Of course, today the NIST report says damage from debris had nothing to do with it. Fires from fuel tanks had nothing to do with it, as FEMA postulated. Spanning a power substation had nothing to do with it. Just regular ol' office fires made 7 fall!

Wanna know something cute? Several years ago Popular Mechanics quoted Shyam Sunder to support their "south face damage" hypothesis. And today's NIST briefing, with a different story was told by, you guessed it, Shyam Sunder!

BTW, NIST told us a few years ago that there was only enough fuel from furnishings in WTC7 offices to burn for 20 minutes in a given area. So the fire moved from one area to another as it ran out of fuel. It would've been hampered by doors and walls...

That same NIST is now saying that these 'uncontrolled fires' were enough to weaken connections between floors and beams and voila, just like dominoes, every single column, both perimeter and core, (there were 81 I think) over every single floor (there were 47 floors) failed virtually all at once in such a way as to produce a totally symmetric, totally rapid (7 seconds) collapse into a neat little pile that didn't even scar the buildings on either side. Those buildings, next door, had no damage from WTC Towers collapsing, and wow, no damage from WTC7 collapsing either.

Just saying........

[ChumpDumper]

Those buildings, next door, had no damage from WTC Towers collapsing, and wow, no damage from WTC7 collapsing either.You are telling an outright, unmitigated, unambiguous, bald-faced lie. You derail any intelligent argument you might have by lying so obviously and completely.

Just saying.....

[xtremesteven33]

dont listen to chumpdumpers "explain to me" stint.

galileo obviously is not right, but CD you can look it up if you really seek to know the Truth.

i dont got time to debate you on the internet

[ChumpDumper]

Here is a map of the WTC complex and surrounding buildings:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg/486px-WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg.png

Here is are pictures of the Verizon building after 9/11:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Verizon_building_damage2.jpg/756px-Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Verizon_building_damage.jpg/419px-Verizon_building_damage.jpg

Verizon spent over $300 million to restore the building.

Here is a picture of 30 West Broadway after 9/11:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

This building had to be demolished and the site is in the process of being rebuilt.

Now dan, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the above post when you said the buildings next door had no damage?

[ChumpDumper]

dont listen to chumpdumpers "explain to me" stint.

galileo obviously is not right, but CD you can look it up if you really seek to know the Truth.

i dont got time to debate you on the internetWow, you are really dedicated to the twoof.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh look, another picture of the Verizon Building. This one has WTC 7 still burning in the background. Any guesses as to what caused the damage, dan?

http://www.debunking911.com/World_trade_ct._22.jpg

Here's some more pictures of the Verizon Building:

http://www.debunking911.com/b7verizon.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/damagetoverizonbuilding.jpg

Now what were you saying about no damage, dan?

[ChumpDumper]

This is the south side of the Verizon Building. Dan, what caused all this damage?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-10.jpg

That is, provided you actually see any damage of course.

[Nbadan]

So um... how come Building 6 remained standing? You do know it stood between the north tower and building 7, right? Before you get to Vesey Street? Clearly you live and worked there to completely back up the 'official' version of what really happened. Right?

Thanks for playing....

[Nbadan]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg
WTC6, heavily damaged, but still standing...

[ChumpDumper]

So um... how come Building 6 remained standing?Different construction. Nonetheless, it suffered several partial collapses as it burned. Another great example of the damage fire can do.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc6_outline.jpg

But of course that must look like no damage at all to you.


Thanks for playing.... Thanks for lying and trying to change the subject, liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Now dan, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the above post when you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?

[ChumpDumper]

But since dan tried to change the subject to 6 to avoid admitting he's a liar, I'll take the opportunity to educate twoofers about the meaning of the word "pull" regarding building demolition.

1uxlrcQL5Dk

Now back to dan -- can you admit you told a flat out lie in the above post when you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?

[RandomGuy]

haha....i guess u think the majority of "conspiracy theorists" are blithering idiots who conjur up retarted questions out of thin air?


truly the idiots are people who dont question and believe anything the media tells them.

Yes, actually, I have come to believe that about people who believe in this bullshit.

I question a lot of things, but tell me, have you ever put ANY level of scrutiny or skepticism to the things you seem to have read about in these conspiracy theories?

[RandomGuy]

i remember talking about this with you.

i gave an explanation before.

Explosives brought down the towers

thats the alternate theory! whats so hard to understand about that.
Larry Silverstein said he decided to "pull it" and BBC News reported the building fell even before it collapsed!! its easy to smell conspiracy here. and you are not unamerican for questioning the official story either.

what more do you need!?

"pull it"? Debunked.

The quote was "THEY made the decision to pull it". They being the fire department and "pull it" being pull the firefighters out of a building on fire with no water to actually fight it.

[RandomGuy]

Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page


“This building—the last to fall on 9-11—is key to all controlled-demolition theories. Its sudden fall onto its own footprint, and developer Larry Silverstein's reference on TV to telling the FDNY to "pull it," are seen as evidence that WTC7 was rigged to fall.” –911truth.org Keep in mind that this misrepresentation comes from is one of the leading organizations of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.” (This is a national organization, not to be confused with ny911truth.org, already mentioned.)

Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon.

Update



Whomever Silverstein spoke with, it wasn't Chief Nigro. As reported by "Ref" at the JREF forum, Chief Nigro did not speak with Silverstein:

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." Source




“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”
That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

Next, did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that Chief Nigro was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.

“And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives? No, they pull their people away from buildings that are too dangerous to be near. The “we” in “we watched the building collapse” is Silverstein and his wife. Silverstein was not at the WTC site.

Now that we’ve seen what Silverstein actually said, let’s see how his statement is represented by leaders of the “Truth Movement.”


James Fetzer


James Fetzer, co-chairman of “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” and long-time JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, interviewed on Alan Colmes’ radio show, June, 2006:

Fetzer: Larry Silverstein, in New York, actually directed the World Trade Center Number 7 be pulled, meaning brought down by controlled demolition.

Colmes: Wasn’t he the landlord? Why would he want that to happen?

Fetzer: Well, it’s recorded. He admitted it in an interview that he had it pulled. Now, just to make an obvious point, Alan, it can’t have been pulled unless there were pre-positioned explosives in World Trade Center 7—

Colmes: What would be Larry Silverstein’s interest in destroying his own building?

Fetzer: He had insured it for $3.5 billion against a terrorist attack six weeks previous.

Colmes: So he’s in on this?

Fetzer: Absolutely. Later in that interview: I can prove all of these things, it’s the only hy-pothesis that makes any sense and in many cases we have direct evidence, we have Silverstein’s admission that he directed that the building be pulled. That was at 5:20 in the afternoon, it had been hit by no aircraft, it had only very modest fires, that was an extremely robustly built building— Keep in mind that Jim Fetzer is one of the leaders of the 9/11 “Truth Movement.”

Update: James Fetzer has split with “Scholars” co-chairman Steven E. Jones, and has been promoting the claim that “high-energy beams” destroyed the WTC buildings. I couldn’t make this up if I tried.



Kevin Barrett




Kevin Barett, who is on the Board of Directors of Fetzer’s “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” starts his website with the words “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” But within that site, Barrett repeatedly bears false witness against Larry Silverstein, and he has refused to correct his errors. Following is a summary of communications I’ve had with Barett:

From: Mark Roberts [email protected] Date: Oct 12, 2006
Subject: Serious errors on your website.
To: [email protected]
Dear Kevin,
In reviewing your website mujca.com, I noticed a particularly baffling passage on the first page (now this page):

"9/11 insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, like the Poe narrator, was apparently confounded by the noise of his own lying heartbeat when he confessed on national TV to making "a decision to pull (WTC-7)...and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building col-lapse." Silverstein's inability to get anything built on the site during the past five years, leaving a gigantic bomb crater screaming silently to the world that the WTC was destroyed by bombs, not by planes, is another, far more eloquent confession. To borrow a phrase from the Loose Change logo, Larry's bomb crater is "louder than words." Perhaps the best possible memorial would be to leave the site exactly the way it is, and hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Larry Silverstein Memorial Bomb Crater."

Several corrections need to be made here:

1) "Insurance-fraudster." I am not aware of Silverstein having done anything illegal involving WTC insurance, and apparently neither are the insurance companies. If you have evidence of such wrongdoing, which would be front page news in New York, please present it. If not, you should retract the accusation.

2) "We made that decision to pull." Kevin, this is a particularly egregious error. I shouldn't have to remind you that the quote is "And they made that decision to pull." Here is the exact quote:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

[RandomGuy]

i remember talking about this with you.

i gave an explanation before.

Explosives brought down the towers

thats the alternate theory! whats so hard to understand about that.
Larry Silverstein said he decided to "pull it" and BBC News reported the building fell even before it collapsed!! its easy to smell conspiracy here. and you are not unamerican for questioning the official story either.

what more do you need!?

Since you are a questioning sort, answer this one:

Is it possible that the BBC report was simply an error made by someone in a large confusing event?

[xtremesteven33]

"pull it"? Debunked.

The quote was "THEY made the decision to pull it". They being the fire department and "pull it" being pull the firefighters out of a building on fire with no water to actually fight it.


actually there was no one in building 7.

and if he said "pull it" would be bad grammar even for a 10 yr old.

if he really was reffering to "firefighters" he would have said "pull out"

[ChumpDumper]

and if he said "pull it"You keep using that word.

I do not think you know what it means.

I gave you a video and everything....

[DarrinS]

And, for the mentally retarded, here is what an implosion (via explosives) sounds like

7Ng5qwtR59A

[xtremesteven33]

You keep using that word.

I do not think you know what it means.

I gave you a video and everything....



i know and how does that help the official story?

[Oh, Gee!!]

somebody should "pull it" this thread

[ChumpDumper]

i know and how does that help the official story?It doesn't, nor does it need to. It merely obliterates the notion that "pull" has anything to do with explosive demolition.

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with the "controlled demolition" theory as presented here is that it makes liars out of most of the NYFD.


This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Thank you very much for this statement, Mr. Nigro. The work you and your colleagues did will never be forgotten.

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro


Mr. Nigro has written several statements about the collapse of WTC7.

For Galileo or whomever:

Is he part of the conspiracy to cover up the demolition? Is he actively lying?

[Nbadan]

Question: Who here trusts a guy named Nigro?


nWs7VUI4gPI

After years of hard work (presumably using their intense blood, sweat, and tears), NIST has issued a final report that fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Their work though was apparently focused on how to somehow validate their previous statements rather than to actually study the known facts. Most of the important “facts” now known about this collapse NIST continues to prefer to simply ignore.

Has the general population of our country been dumbed down enough to believe the above report? NIST claims their research team included 50 experts from diverse fields “including engineering, explosives, fire, and construction”. On the other hand, over 400 professional architects and engineers see things differently. In a news conference immediately following the NIST report, Richard Gage and others expose obvious factual evidence that NIST pretended to not exist. The web site set up by this group uses robust science to show that WTC-7 collapsed by controlled demolition. (http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html) Anyone who has watched a controlled demolition can see it. Fire does not turn steel buildings into dust – it's a fact of life and science.

[ChumpDumper]

Question: Who here trusts a guy named Nigro?
What are you saying, dan? Are you accusing the chief of the FDNY of lying and being a part of your still unposted conspiracy theory?

And why did you post a video of Cenk saying he believes the NIST report?

And finally, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the post where you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?

[1369]

As someone who was trained in the use of explosives, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

[RandomGuy]

As someone who was trained in the use of explosives, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Try not to strain your ribs from laughing too hard... :lol

[Nbadan]

...Well, he was refering to stomach gas....

[RandomGuy]

Question: Who here trusts a guy named Nigro?


nWs7VUI4gPI

After years of hard work (presumably using their intense blood, sweat, and tears), NIST has issued a final report that fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Their work though was apparently focused on how to somehow validate their previous statements rather than to actually study the known facts. Most of the important “facts” now known about this collapse NIST continues to prefer to simply ignore.

Has the general population of our country been dumbed down enough to believe the above report? NIST claims their research team included 50 experts from diverse fields “including engineering, explosives, fire, and construction”. On the other hand, over 400 professional architects and engineers see things differently. In a news conference immediately following the NIST report, Richard Gage and others expose obvious factual evidence that NIST pretended to not exist. The web site set up by this group uses robust science to show that WTC-7 collapsed by controlled demolition. (http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html) Anyone who has watched a controlled demolition can see it. Fire does not turn steel buildings into dust – it's a fact of life and science.

The "dust" thing again. :rolleyes

Tell me Dan where were the distinct sounds that should have been audible for miles?

Tell me dan where are the glass shards propelled for miles from the site?

This magic explosive can make "dust" out of concrete, but they magically don't propel acres of glass outwards at thousands of feet per second and don't make enough sound to be heard distinctly for dozens of miles.

Much like the sounds of REAL controlled demolitions do:

9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
tacYjsS-g6k

[RandomGuy]

Maybe Dan will utter the phrase "free-fall" again.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
qLShZOvxVe4

[Nbadan]

Maybe Dan will utter the phrase "free-fall" again.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
qLShZOvxVe4

:rolleyes

The tower fall speeds I quoted were from the 911 commission report idiot....you saying they lied too now?

[RandomGuy]

But Larry Silverstein said "pull it"

DT0WjGyZW1M

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

The tower fall speeds I quoted were from the 911 commission report idiot....you saying they lied too now?

What free fall speeds were that dan?

I think I missed that part.

[Nbadan]

You want simple math? Try Boolean algebra (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html)

[RandomGuy]

but but it wasn't actually explosives... it was THERMATE!

9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
OWpC_1WP8do

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyes

The tower fall speeds I quoted were from the 911 commission report idiot....you saying they lied too now?Pretty bad form trying to use a political document for purposes of your "scientific" argument.

I wouldn't be surprised if the commission report simply described the time taken for the first debris to hit the ground -- you know all that stuff that was falling outside the towers at actual free fall speed, faster than the towers themselves.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't think I've forgotten these questions:
What are you saying, dan? Are you accusing the chief of the FDNY of lying and being a part of your still unposted conspiracy theory?

And why did you post a video of Cenk saying he believes the NIST report?

And finally, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the post where you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?

[RandomGuy]

You want simple math? Try Boolean algebra (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html)

Most of the underlying assumptions they choose to feed into their equations are false.

How can one expect to get a meaningful true/false calculation of probability if your starting assumptions are flawed?

I am really tired of reading all your bullshit sites, and you not returning the favor.

Read a few debunking sites. Spend 1/100th of the time you spend on reading the conspiracy theories and read an opposing point of view.

What are you really afraid of?

What if you are wrong Dan?

[Nbadan]

Pretty bad form trying to use a political document for purposes of your "scientific" argument.

I wouldn't be surprised if the commission report simply described the time taken for the first debris to hit the ground -- you know all that stuff that was falling outside the towers at actual free fall speed, faster than the towers themselves.

:rolleyes

Ml_n5gJgQ_U

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyes

Ml_n5gJgQ_UWhy are you changing the subject to WTC7? Its fall time was never mentioned in the commission report.

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

Ml_n5gJgQ_U

Fuck you.

I'm not watching shit until you watch a debunking video.

[Nbadan]

Fuck you.

I'm not watching shit until you watch a debunking video.

You'd never make in the classroom Randomdude...

[ChumpDumper]

:rolleyes

Ml_n5gJgQ_UHey dan, I just noticed that this video you used to try to change the subject deliberately crops out the entire eastern half of WTC7.

Why is that?

Could it be that the eastern part of the building collapsed well before this "scientist" began timing the fall of the rest of the building?

I won't expect an answer, but I will keep asking. Why don't you answer these questions? You'd never make it in a classroom not answering questions.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, here's the list of questions for dan from this thread alone:

What are you saying, dan? Are you accusing the chief of the FDNY of lying and being a part of your still unposted conspiracy theory?

And why did you post a video of Cenk saying he believes the NIST report?

Why did this video you used to try to change the subject deliberately crop out the entire eastern half of WTC7?

And finally, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the post where you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?

[RandomGuy]

You'd never make in the classroom Randomdude...

???

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but I take it you are refusing to watch a single debunking video?

[ChumpDumper]

dan asked if I had anything else for him in another thread, so I need to bump this to remind him that he needs to answer these questions.
Ok, here's the list of questions for dan from this thread alone:

What are you saying, dan? Are you accusing the chief of the FDNY of lying and being a part of your still unposted conspiracy theory?

And why did you post a video of Cenk saying he believes the NIST report?

Why did this video you used to try to change the subject deliberately crop out the entire eastern half of WTC7?

And finally, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the post where you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?

[ChumpDumper]

....and brave Sir Robin ran away.


Again.

[ChumpDumper]

Back to the original topic.

The NIST presser is now online here:

http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=lobby.jsp&eventid=117359&sessionid=1&key=17480F564B916A0A9CA3CFB3EE5BDDA2&eventuserid=18909307

Shyam Sunder is even appearing on radio shows opposite twoofers. Here is a Canadian show with him and apparently the best-qualified twoofer to discuss an engineering report....

....a retired associate professor....

....of religious studies.

http://media.putfile.com/Dr-Graeme-MacQueen-and-Dr-Shyam-Sunder

Sunder has also been on the super duper liberal "No Lies Radio" show. The archive should be available late in the week.

[Winehole23]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

[The Reckoning]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dz6uRWbXLB0/TWCOo2oeH1I/AAAAAAAABTE/pdeuJYkf4uM/s1600/6.gif

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/2220785/ron-artest-missed-dunk-1-o.gif

[Nbadan]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/docs/lead_lg.jpg

PM devotes an entire page to this dramatic photograph by Rob Howard showing Flight 175 approaching the South Tower. Unsupported claims that the plane was not a jetliner have been the staple of efforts to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement for over a year. The selection of this as the centerpiece image is one of an array of techniques Popular Mechanics uses to falsely identify the 9/11 Truth movement with a campaign cleverly used to discredit it through associating it with claims for which there is no evidence, such as the claim that this plane carried a missile-firing pod.

PM provides no evidence for its assertion that the claims it attacks are representative of the army of conspiracy theorists. It cites at least one website for each of its claims, but the websites are not representative of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It makes no mention of 911Research.wtc7.net, the highest-ranking 9/11 Truth website returned by a Google search using "9/11". Several references are anonymous posts to sites that don't exercise editorial control

[Nbadan]

CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. ... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11.

Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.net both claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man by relating some details of the Commission's timeline (without sourcing the Commission's Report) to suggest that interceptors were scrambled, but that ATC couldn't find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips. The article makes no mention of the many problems with NORAD's account of the failed intercepts, but relates the following incredible assertion by NORAD public affairs officer Maj. Douglas Martin that there was a hole in NORAD's radar coverage:

It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle.

This absurd idea that NORAD had no radar coverage over much of the continental US is distilled from the 9/11 Commission Report. Predictably, the article makes no mention of evidence that war games were being conducted on 9/11/01 and that false radar blips were deliberately inserted onto FAA radar screens.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol distilled from the 9/11 commission report.

I hope you are not a science teacher.

If you are a teacher Dan, does your principal and/or superintendent know that you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy that the US government is willingly lying to the public about?

[ChumpDumper]

Plagiarism does not help the twoofer movement.

[Nbadan]

:lol distilled from the 9/11 commission report.

I hope you are not a science teacher.

If you are a teacher Dan, does your principal and/or superintendent know that you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy that the US government is willingly lying to the public about?

I work on the web and create questions, but I don't think my thoughts on 911 would matter to anyone.......I just happen to believe that there was a lot more to 911 than has been released to the public....whatever your thoughts now, in the long scope of things, I think this will be vindicated...and guys like RG and Chumpy who have drank the 9/11 commission report koolaid will be saying...the fucker was right...

[Nbadan]

Plagiarism does not help the twoofer movement.

And that is what chumpy has been reduced too....sad.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The same brain that criticizes others for using the 9/11 commission report finds no issue with 'distilling' from said report.

What do confirmation bias mean?

and :lol "in the long scope of things, I think this will be vindicated"

You keep holding your breath for a mystery 'revelation' to vindicate you. I will trust the ME, CE and architects that I have talked to on this subject.

You keep on with your purple faced distilling.

[Nbadan]

The same brain that criticizes others for using the 9/11 commission report finds no issue with 'distilling' from said report.

What do confirmation bias mean?

and :lol "in the long scope of things, I think this will be vindicated"

You keep holding your breath for a mystery 'revelation' to vindicate you. I will trust the ME, CE and architects that I have talked to on this subject.

You keep on with your purple faced distilling.

Whatever Fuzzy Wuzzy....There are plenty of ME, CE and architects who agree with me, which have looked at the evidence much closer than your personal friends and who are willing to put their professional reputations out there.....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol you don't even know who I have spoken with. you sure like making shit up and inserting it for the truth though. you go full WC mode with this twoofer shit. you should be proud.

[Nbadan]

:lol you don't even know who I have spoken with. you sure like making shit up and inserting it for the truth though. you go full WC mode with this twoofer shit. you should be proud.

Your 12 years too late to this party Fuzzy.....go back and look through the 10,000 other 9/11 threads in this forum and then come at me with some real facts...

[ChumpDumper]

Come at us with what you think really happened on 9/11.

After a full decade plus, you still have nothing -- no truther does. The only reason any of you hold on to this mindset is pride -- which is hilarious since you are at the same time too ashamed to even hint at an actual theory.

You lost dan. You've already given up.

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever Fuzzy Wuzzy....There are plenty of ME, CE and architects who agree with me, which have looked at the evidence much closer than your personal friends and who are willing to put their professional reputations out there.....You aren't willing to put anything on the line.

Even on an anonymous message board.

As stupid as Wild Cobra can be, at least he posts what he actually believes.

You don't, and that's why no one will ever take you seriously. It's as simple as that.

[Nbadan]

Come at us with what you think really happened on 9/11.

After a full decade plus, you still have nothing -- no truther does. The only reason any of you hold on to this mindset is pride -- which is hilarious since you are at the same time too ashamed to even hint at an actual theory.

You lost dan. You've already given up.

Lost? :lol

I'm not waiting for any new evidence to be found...I'm just waiting for the evidence to be released...

[Nbadan]

You aren't willing to put anything on the line.

Even on an anonymous message board.

As stupid as Wild Cobra can be, at least he posts what he actually believes.

You don't, and that's why no one will ever take you seriously. It's as simple as that.

Just like NIST put their data out there so it could be peer reviewed right Chumpy?

[ChumpDumper]

Lost? :lol

I'm not waiting for any new evidence to be found...I'm just waiting for the evidence to be released...You haven't done anything with any evidence before, so don't lie about any more evidence, OK?


Just like NIST put their data out there so it could be peer reviewed right Chumpy?Just like the twoofers made their red paint chips availble for independent review, right dan?

[mouse]

Hey Chump what do you think really happened at the Alamo?

Do you have any proof besides what has been written?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chump what do you think really happened at the Alamo?Probably some guys surrendered and were killed later. Either way errbody died.


Do you have any proof besides what has been written?No. Fortunately there is a lot more evidence than what is written about 9/11.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your 12 years too late to this party Fuzzy.....go back and look through the 10,000 other 9/11 threads in this forum and then come at me with some real facts...

You act like I have not payed attention to this subject. It's not as if you are some font of insight into the tragedy over the last decade. You have been pulling out the same tired bullshit since this site opened. Sure, every now and then you will parrot something you see from your favorite conspiracy website but that is about it.

Even your back and forth with Chump is the same bullshit but you have yet to give an alternate theory of what happened. You are just sophist for the notion that there is a national conspiracy and have zero interest in finding out what actually happened.

[redzero]

Nbadan thinks the government trained the hijackers, made them, the people on all four planes, and the planes themselves disappear forever, then had duplicate planes piloted by experienced pilots fly into the WTC's, the Pentagon, and a field (for some reason).

I am not joking. Nbadan seriously believes that that happened.

[Nbadan]

Nbadan thinks the government trained the hijackers, made them, the people on all four planes, and the planes themselves disappear forever, then had duplicate planes piloted by experienced pilots fly into the WTC's, the Pentagon, and a field (for some reason).

I am not joking. Nbadan seriously believes that that happened.

Quote? That right there sums up the bush=got-one-right club...I'm losing on facts, so I better throw out some straw...

[Nbadan]

You act like I have not payed attention to this subject. It's not as if you are some font of insight into the tragedy over the last decade. You have been pulling out the same tired bullshit since this site opened. Sure, every now and then you will parrot something you see from your favorite conspiracy website but that is about it.

If you've been paying attention then at least get your facts straight...I never said the government did it....

[Nbadan]

Some fun facts for Fuzzy Wuzzy...

http://www.bartcop.com/benghazi-bushs-watch.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is SA210 a troll of your or are you just taking notes from him?

And let's be clear. You do not believe that the government is covering something up?

[SA210]

Is SA210 a troll of your or are you just taking notes from him?

And let's be clear. You do not believe that the government is covering something up?


:lmao a troll = posting facts you don't like


If you wanna criticize NBADan without you getting so butthurt and deflecting, then just point out how he left out Obama's murderous war criminal policy and how much more money Obama has spent in Afghanistan and other illegal wars, and the Americans and civilian deaths under Obama, suicides etc, instead of just keeping it on war criminal Bush.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't disagree that Bush's foreign policy was awful and contributed to alienating the majority of the ME nor that it was marred by violence against our diplomatic core and military.

I fail to see what bearing that has on an attack that occurred in the first year of his presidency. All that tells me is that his conspiracy is driven by his political bias and not on facts. If anything, it drives home the notion that Arab terrorists indeed flew those planes into the towers. They certainly tried very hard to get at us across the rest of the world.

The reason why I compared him to you is because posting meme's demonstrates an inability to articulate and even worse, a failure to think for ones self. For example, your political takes are 95% memes and youtubes while what you write is misquotes, smilies and juvenile back and forth with chump.

[SA210]

I don't disagree that Bush's foreign policy was awful and contributed to alienating the majority of the ME nor that it was marred by violence against our diplomatic core and military.

I fail to see what bearing that has on an attack that occurred in the first year of his presidency. All that tells me is that his conspiracy is driven by his political bias and not on facts. If anything, it drives home the notion that Arab terrorists indeed flew those planes into the towers. They certainly tried very hard to get at us across the rest of the world.

The reason why I compared him to you is because posting meme's demonstrates an inability to articulate and even worse, a failure to think for ones self. For example, your political takes are 95% memes and youtubes while what you write is misquotes, smilies and juvenile back and forth with chump.

That's just your opinion bc you don't like what's being said. Facts are facts regardless of what form they come in. There is nothing false about that meme he posted, but it was easy for you to spin it and bring me up bc you didn't like the factual info in it. Like I said in another thread, I posted many memes and you-tubes during Bush's Presidency, and for some reasons the pictures and YouTubes were NEVER a problem to the fake liberals of the board, in fact they cheered them on, laughed their asses off and defended them, all the time. Now that the memes and you-tubes are against their current war criminal President who wears a D, the fake liberals of the board ARE butthurt and suddenly don't like it. And the Republicans of the board already didn't like me bc of my takes on Bush so both ignorant sides love to circle jerk with eachother now when it comes to me, shows their true character. Get over yourself. lol

That's YOUR problem if you don't like the way in which facts are given, and no thats not the only way I express myself, you lie. It's a message board btw, I can post a YouTube or pic if I want. Your baseless flame wars are hilarious. :lol Oh, and.... :lol at you defending the biggest troll and child of the entire forum, Chump, the one that goes back and forth with his juvenile ankle biting and tail chasing with everyone 24/7 with his 75,000 posts all over the place. lol You've lost all cred defending that fool for being the biggest loser troll ever. haha

But anyway, back to the topic. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Still talking about me, eh?

And you never got back to the topic.

Now you can -- what do you think really happened to make WTC 7 collapse?

We will not expect a real answer. Just more ankle biting and posts about me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Memes are to political thought as picture books are to literature.

You have few, if any, independent political takes. Even your 'fake liberal' schtick is straight out of one of your youtubes. So go ahead and call them facts and I will consider them spoon fed political thought. If you want to be their monkey then go right ahead.

[redzero]

Quote? That right there sums up the bush=got-one-right club...I'm losing on facts, so I better throw out some straw...

So, I'm wrong? You don't think the government made duplicate planes and had experienced pilots fly them on 9/11?

[Nbadan]

Memes are to political thought as picture books are to literature.

You have few, if any, independent political takes. Even your 'fake liberal' schtick is straight out of one of your youtubes. So go ahead and call them facts and I will consider them spoon fed political thought. If you want to be their monkey then go right ahead.

I'll be your honey-suckle...... :lol at being a monkey to facts.....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't disagree that Bush's foreign policy was awful and contributed to alienating the majority of the ME nor that it was marred by violence against our diplomatic core and military.

I fail to see what bearing that has on an attack that occurred in the first year of his presidency.

I guess this was too hard to figure out.

So explain to me what bearing those tallies are on an attack that occurred in Bush's first year in office. I don't go for the bait and switch. We are talking about you thinking there is a government conspiracy to hide from us the facts around the 9/11 facts. What bearing does it have beyond your desire to fellate Obama?

[Nbadan]

So, I'm wrong? You don't think the government made duplicate planes and had experienced pilots fly them on 9/11?

No, not at all, but I have explored the theory that at least some of the planes were duplicated and were remotely flown into the towers ....so that is why the transponders were turned off....but that theory always seems to go back to if the planes were duplicated, then what the hell happened to the real planes?

No answer.

[Nbadan]

...anyway, what bothers me most about 9/11 is the math ....the way things worked out the way they did that day for the terrorists...from the incredible odds that 4 planes would be successfully hijacked, the odds that each plane would be commandeered...the incredible odds that the pilots all reach their targets ...and make incredible maneuvers to hit those targets...the NORAD delays...the war games....phantom radar and transponders....unexplained drones...yada..yada..yada...

[redzero]

And what are your statistics based off? You're basically making an argument from ignorance: "I can't see how things happened the way they happened, so they must have happened another way."

[Nbadan]

FIFU


"I can't see how things happened the way they happened, so they could have happened another way."

Ignorance is just accepting that everything happen the way someone says it happened..IMO

[ChumpDumper]

...anyway, what bothers me most about 9/11 is the math ....the way things worked out the way they did that day for the terrorists...from the incredible odds that 4 planes would be successfully hijacked, the odds that each plane would be commandeered...the incredible odds that the pilots all reach their targets ...and make incredible maneuvers to hit those targets...the NORAD delays...the war games....phantom radar and transponders....unexplained drones...yada..yada..yada...Ok, what were the odds?

You had a decade to work them out.

[redzero]

FIFU



Ignorance is just accepting that everything happen the way someone says it happened..IMO

Can you prove that things happened any other way?