Uh huh....

ROFL, I completely owned the truthers and non-truthers in this thread.

What do both sides do when you point out why they're idiots? Ignore you!

I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest. The rest of you PORN WEBMASTERS can keep debating physics and steel manufacturing.

My 2 cents...

No other way for those buildings to come down besides Controlled Demolition...

For those that believe the media establishment: don't call truthers conspiracy nuts when you are the ones promoting a conspiracy... most truthers simply see that the official story is full of shit and just ask questions... so if any one is a conspiracy nut, its you!

You shouldnt worry that i call morons morons because when i call morons morons it means they are morons. You i dont call a moron because i dont think youre a moron. Thats all you have to worry about :)

You "owned" nothing. We didn't ignore you because you're right, we ignored you because you're ridiculous.

Now go "Own" somewhere else.

The sheer amount of evidence avalible on the subject is more than enough for anyone with half a brain cell to form a pretty god damn rock solid conlusion as to what happed on 9/11. To say "nobody knows shit" is laughable at best.

You may want to double check your facts...

Just about every effort to combat truthers talks about how these conspiracy nuts are... I haven't seen one yet that actually goes through the questions being raised and answers them... and unlike you, I've spent a fair amount of time searching.

If you're going to be so opinionated, perhaps you should try actually researching these beliefs that you have... and for gods sake man, turn off your god-damn tv.

There has been hundreds.. if not thousands, of people who answered and provided reasonable explainations the bat shit insane theories go completely ignored and pretended they don't exsist. Nice research you've done. maybe you should look to more research other than some guy with a truther blog ran out of his moms basement.

Right now it's 6:45pm here.

You have 2 hours to post this exactly:

'I am the dumbest and biggest crock of shit on this board. I apologize for saying anything bad about webmasters, and from now on, I'll keep my mouth shut and I won't post my dumb claims and write dumb things.'

Before I come back on here and totally crush you.

30 mins left to say sorry! after that theres no holding me back :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

and after i post THAT, ill not post for around a week so I can use my #1000 for something useful.

Time is ticking!

I love how all of the building pancaking experts come out of the woodwork once these discussions start.

Anyone who thinks twin towers were brought down by controlled demo is an idiot, and has not bothered to do any research on the subject.

Well, can't say I didn't give you an out.

Here comes the crush.

First point:

"Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history... whats never been explained is how and when that relationship officially ended. The fact is we had a close relationship with the man who is now supposidly our biggest enemy, but the details of that relationship are vastly unexplained."

The reality:

The U.S. government officials and a number of other parties maintain that the U.S. supported only the indigenous Afghan mujahideen. They deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them. They argue that with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land; that with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds; that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan[12]; that the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even when they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.

Second point:

"Why was Pakistani intelligence chief Ahmad (who wired the 9/11 hijackers $100,000) in Washington DC meeting with US officials on the morning of 9/11? Why did the 9/11 comission not include this in their investigation? Why was he allowed back to Pakistan, then retired and disappeared without any followup???"

The reality is that this guy didn't retire then just disappear, he had a trial and was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Urdu: احمد عمر سعید شیخ) (sometimes known as Umar Sheikh, Sheikh Omar[1], Sheik Syed[2], or by the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad"[3]) (b. December 23, 1973) is a British-born militant of Pakistani descent with alleged links to various Islamic-based organisations, including Jaish-e-Mohammed, Al-Qaeda, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Taliban.

He was arrested and served time in prison for the 1994 abduction of several British nationals in India, an act which he acknowledges, he was released from captivity in 1999 and provided safe passage into Pakistan, apparently with the support of Pakistan and the Taliban (the hijackers were Pakistanis) in an Indian Airlines plane hijacking. He is most well-known for his alleged role in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Sheikh Omar Saeed was arrested by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002, in Lahore, in conjunction with the Pearl kidnapping,[4] and was sentenced to death on July 15, 2002[5] for killing Pearl. His judicial appeal has not yet been heard. The delay has been alleged to be due to his reported links with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.[6]

Third point:

"Why did members of the 9/11 comission claim "There were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail." citing lack of cooperation from the white house. On this same note why would Bush only speak to them if it was off the record, together with Cheney, and he wasnt under oath?"

Actually what happened is that members of the 9/11 commission didn't say that, however one member did write it in a book. This is what he says about why he though they wanted them to fail):

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don?t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

Fourth Point:

"WHO THE HELL WARNED OAKLAND MAYOR WILLIE BROWN NOT TO FLY? This is from the goddamn SF Chronicle and has since been burried with no explination. ( SF Chronicle Sept 12th )"

The reality:

"It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

So because this guy got a call the day before 9/11, a call he gets all the time, it means he was warned about 9/11? My dick hurt that morning, must mean my dick is a danger alarm.


For a guy who claims to be posting honest things ('I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest.') You sure are full of alot of shit.

And you have the nerve to post this?

"It's that sloppyness that leads to 'truthers' jumping to dramatic conclusion, and the equally disgusting anti-truthers who pretend their gap-filled story makes sense."

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

So what do you have to say now? Now that you were proven to be a LIAR on each point you made? Still think you posted something even remotely honest?

http://inplayboy.com/booahh.gif

In this I'm Mugatu, and you're Todd.

moeloubani, wow, great post. kudos.

Then, while on your exstensive research into the subject you've surely came across:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://debunking911.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...42.html?page=1

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...reducation.uk1


and most importantly:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

What about building 7? It came down and it was only hit with debris. No plane, no jet fuel.

:anon:upsidedow

They have no answer for building 7. Building 7 never happened.

That would be a great band name.. "Building Seven"

moeloubani you are a CLASSIC CASE of exactly what I said before. Here's whats so funny, YOU ARE A 'TRUTHER" IN THE EXACT WAY YOU CRITICIZEM THEM - For pretending you're an expert when you are not.

- You do not have insight into the CIA, you're a porn webmaster. Please do not tell me you know exact details of off-the record relationships built during the cold war.

- I asked why General Ahmad was not included in the 'official' investigation, not "where is he now?" somehow you just gave me a bunch of random data as if it would make me forget you didn't address the question.

- I asked who warned Oakland Mayor Willie Browne not to fly, and once again completely ignoring the question you give a quote from another article basically saying Willie claims to get those warnings often. Uhhh... I don't know if you can read (but you sure can type!) but I asked WHO.... not how often.

Once again, I find people like you very odd. You flood me with random data and no answers yet I think you REALLY believe your reply was intelligent.

The people with your exact personality type are also the hardcore truthers. You're ability to convince yourself you're much smarter then you really are is somewhat disturbing.


My case stands: You truthers AND anti-truthers are ALL full of shit! There is a valid list of mysteries surrounding 9/11, those who can say with any condifence that their THEORY is a perfect reflection of the truth is lying - truthers and anti-truthers alike.

Sure DirtyF, from now on, we will regard whatever you say as gospel.

No, I don't have insight into the CIA, but that info was from the CIA, and they DO have insight into the CIA.

As to the next point, you said he disappeared, which was a flat out lie.

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. [1]

So, he was included in the official investigation. Again, another lie.

And the quote from that article (not from another article, from the article YOU linked to) said exactly who warned him.

"Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."

The call came from his security at the airport. I'm not sure why he would give exact names, but he said who warned him.

I don't pretend I'm an expert, I give proof backed up from official sources, then I discuss them. You are the one who pretends to be an expert.

Come on dude, admit defeat, don't try to go on with your statements with zero proof, especially if the statements are all flat out lies and little remarks with no back up.

And just to top it all off, let me show you how confused you are. In your first post you wrote:

Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history

Then just now you wrote:

Please do not tell me you know exact details of off-the record relationships built during the cold war.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Busted!

I'm not sure Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and 9/11 had something to do with fate and destiny.

I'm also not sure that irrational trust is "better" than rational mistrust.

"Why are you so paranoid, Mulder?"
"Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because I find it hard to trust anybody."
- Scully & Mulder

http://www.donath.org/Quotes/Paranoia/

great pic:thumbsup

Yep that`s right. it `starts` deteriorating the strength of the metal. The metal has to be exposed for hours though, not for 30 to 60 minutes.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...estResults.pdf

Actually I was talking to Mark, whose logical mind and reason have generally stood up to reason in the face of proof.

The 9/11 Commission and NIST did not come up with proof. The first ignored building 7 enitrely, the second said they couldn't explain the ease and speed and utter collapse of building 7.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...estResults.pdf

The report states that temperatures couldn't have reached higher than 650 degrees celsius for longer than 20 minutes. They tested it much longer than that, and at higher temperatures.

So how long in a smelter does steel have to be exposed (consistently) to these temperatures in order to initiate the beginings of malleability?

Then there's melted and eaten away steal which they can't explainl; documented:
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...#a1201eutectic

Shit wouldn't happen in a fire.

"The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners,"

-Frank A. DeMartini, construction manager of the Trade Center

I don't know what the plan was. When I first saw the buildings blow up live on TV I thought that they'd build the things with explosives in them to avoid a tilted collapse, all the life and collateral destruction that would cause.

But when they started talking about pankcakes, then changed the story to fuel fires softening the metal in such a short time, I was... freaked. You'd expect gravity driven collapses to topple, create huge amounts of shattered concrete affixed to steel beams, but there was none of that.

Why does your mind make you ignore obvious evidence about what really happened to Building 7 and harp on the fire angle. Is that being honest and objective. I mean just look under the collapse section of this wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center - and all the footnotes provided. Yet you still blather about fire.

MediaGuy, what, no love or time to look at this obvious and rational explanation for building 7 - http://debunking911.com/pull.htm - or are you too busy cherry-picking what to talk about that supports your cause.

Bill Murray as the world's most annoying clown.

I also heard one guy say he'd "pull" the building.

I also heard detonations and explosions in the raw footage.

So did firefighters:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...stories&st=cse

According to studies, there's proof of not "Bombs" in the buildings but cutter charges and steel-melting compounds which after doing their work would have caused the creaking you could sense in the lower floors minutes before the collapse. Fires that were starting to go out sixty stories above couldn't have caused that.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...1/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Then there's corroded steel which couldn't happen with a fire. New York Times, even FEMA reported on that http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm.

The NIST reported ignored the topic.

In fact NIST presented facts and made statements which wouldn't lead most readers to the same conclusions it reached; they were separate from the report. As if they knew people would read either the facts or the conclusions. Read both and see.

I read those. I don't blather about fire. No one blathers about WTC7 - what caused it to come down straight and purfect.

Neither commission reports or NIST or FEMA talk about the collapse. They talk about what "lead" to it.

If there was such damage on the south face, why did it not fall backwards. Have you seen the footage? It's near one of the most perfect demolitions recorded. Ever.

Every truss, beam and girder would have to fail absolutely and simultaneously for it to go down the way it did. No one addresses this.

Actual physical damage leading to collapse would have lead to toppling determined by the measure of the damage. That didn't happen. It went down like a house of cards, with nothing but air inside apparently.

OK, so even though the links I posted provide a pile of obvious evidence as to what brought building 7 down from hundreds of leading experts, you refuse to buy it because of how it fell like a controlled demolition. Hmm, guess after reading this you are all out of reasons to hang onto your true believer beliefs:

from structure magazine -
this sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact facade, suggests an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a controlled collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC7. - from http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Show us the PROOF man :1orglaugh

Fucking retard. Youre insane.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Anybody who wonders why this building collapsed isnt too bright. Even a kid can understand why after seeing this.

I dont get it man, in one posts nutjobs like you say explosions were reported, detonations, before it came down (in the basement and lower levels) and then the next moment you say the building pancakes down which is only possible if every level has bombs going off, starting on top...shouldnt we hear a shitloads of bombs when the building goes down then? And the next post you're mumbling about evidence of charges and steel-melting compounds and not bombs.

You know there are people locked up in mental hospitals who talk like you right?

Controlled demolition is just as the name implies. It is in a controlled enviroment with unfettered access to the building. The largest recorded CD is 2.2 million square feet and took an army of technicians a month to rig.

In contrast, the WTC was abou 13 million square feet and in one of the busiest sites in the world. It's not about a bunch of commandos throwing some bombs behind a few desks. This job would take unrestricted access for an army of engineers with miles of wiring and tons of explosives, drilling equipment, and lots of time. Hardly possible in downtown New York without it being a major public event.

Then avoiding damage to the rig by the "fake" airplane crashes with fake non-existant souls onboard.

You truthers are idiots, plain and simple.

Nutjobs like Mediaguy dont bother thinking about this. All he does is search the net for vague records of someone saying "i heard a bomb go off" and then he comes here screaming there is evidence...

I totaly agree!