Re: 9-11 was, of course, an inside job. (reality)
Henry
> See, since you provide no actual facts or data, there is nothing to
> refute.
So, in your "mind", there was no World Trade Center Seven, and
it didn't collapse on 9-11-01? Your extreme ignorance (or is it
insanity) if nothing else, is at least slightly amusing. Thanks
for proving my point again - which of course, is that without
exception, blind faith followers of the government's physically
impossible 9-11 cartoon fairy tale lack the intelligence, self
respect, and credibility to defend their beliefs or address the
hard facts, evidence, and expert research
Your belief that nothing but minor ordinary office fires caused WTC7's
free fall and symmetric drop is as silly as believing in The Great
Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy.
Here's why. Let's see if you can actually address the expert research,
hard evidence, and facts, or like most blind faith followers of the
government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, get even sillier and/or run away
frustrated and confused by a challenge to actually read and think. <g>
Obviously, a steel frame that's engineered to support several times
its own weight can not crush itself at the rate of free fall. The
belief that it can, is one of the most comically absurd claims in
your impossible magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.
With regard to 9-11, much like a religious extremist, you believe
what you're told to believe, and you do so out of an emotional blind
faith. Logical, factual, detailed challenges to your blind faith are
met with reactionary emotional denials and a total absence of logic
or reason. That's why you're reduced to spewing childish nonsense
when you're challenged to address the facts, evidence, expert
research, and defend your conspiracy theory. As always, here's hard
proof.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.
Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.
Proof of free fall is documented below in several short videos linked
below.
http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer
>> See, since you provide no actual facts or data, there is nothing to
>> refute.
>
> So, in your "mind", there was no World Trade Center Seven, and
>it didn't collapse on 9-11-01?
Of course there was, and that just proves me right.
> Your extreme ignorance (or is it
Stamping your feet and insisting that you're right doesn't work except
for the gullible and the cowardly. I am neither. I am rarely swayed
by religious cults such as yours.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> explained:
>> Ray Fischer timidly lied:
>>> See, since you provide no actual facts or data, there is
>>> nothing to refute.
>> So, in your "mind", there was no World Trade Center Seven,
>> and it didn't collapse on 9-11-01?
> Of course there was, and that just proves me right.
Actually, that proves you dead wrong, as well as rather
weak minded and confused. You see, that WTC7 existed and
that it collapsed on 9-11-01 are just two of the many "actual
facts" stated by 9-11 Truth experts. Your religious, cult like,
blind faith belief in the government's 9-11 cartoon fairy tale
forces you to spew idiotic drivel and lies such as we "provide
no actual facts or data". That was obviously a *very* stupid
conspiracy kook lie, and now you've been forced to gag on it.
But then, stupidity and lies are about all we ever see posted
by mindless followers of the government's impossible 9-11 fairy
tale. Thanks for demonstrating that for us yet again. <chuckle>
A challenge to read, think, defend their beliefs, and address
the actual facts and data sends magic fire/Super Arab conspiracy
theorists into fits of confusion and incoherence. You can't address
the facts, evidence, and expert research because that would require
intelligence, integrity, and a bit of intellectual courage. As
a clueless, gullible, and timid sheep, you lack those traits, and
you prove it with each timid, fact free kook rant/lie. This is
precisely why followers of the "official" conspiracy theory have
no credibility among intelligent, informed, thinking people. Thanks
for proving my point again. You make it very easy... ;-)
Your belief that nothing but minor ordinary office fires caused WTC7's
free fall and symmetric drop is as silly as believing in The Great
Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy.
Here's why. Let's see if you can actually address the expert research,
hard evidence, and facts, or like most blind faith followers of the
government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, get even sillier and/or run away
frustrated and confused by a challenge to actually read and think.
Obviously, a steel frame that's engineered to support several times
its own weight can not crush itself at the rate of free fall. The
belief that it can, is one of the most comically absurd claims in
your impossible magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.
With regard to 9-11, much like a religious extremist, you believe
what you're told to believe, and you do so out of an emotional blind
faith. Logical, factual, detailed challenges to your blind faith are
met with reactionary emotional denials and a total absence of logic
or reason. That's why you're reduced to spewing childish nonsense
when you're challenged to address the facts, evidence, expert
research, and defend your conspiracy theory. As always, here's hard
proof.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Proof of free fall is documented below in several short videos.
http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
According to the government's latest revision/lie, WTC7 "collapsed"
due to nothing but minor ordinary office fires. It was too far from
the towers to suffer any significant damage from their demolitions.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
"Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.
Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
S'mee
Damn you are stupid and so is the good Dr. Neither of you is capable
of THINKING. It did prove Ray correct you just get pissy when people
like him and myself point out the fallicies of your fucking delusions.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer backpedaled and weaseled:
>> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> explained:
>>> Ray Fischer timidly lied:
>
>>>> See, since you provide no actual facts or data, there is
>>>> nothing to refute.
>
>>> So, in your "mind", there was no World Trade Center Seven,
>>> and it didn't collapse on 9-11-01?
>
>> Of course there was, and that just proves me right.
>
> Actually, that proves you dead wrong,
Nope. You're still crazy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
*us*
>...that WTC7 existed and
Thanks for posting that.
Those buildings didn't resist collapsing at all.
They should have, if the official story were true.
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer backpedaled and weaseled:
>>> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> explained:
>>>> Ray Fischer timidly lied:
>>>>> See, since you provide no actual facts or data, there is
>>>>> nothing to refute.
>>>> So, in your "mind", there was no World Trade Center Seven,
>>>> and it didn't collapse on 9-11-01?
>>> Of course there was, and that just proves me right.
>> Actually, that proves you dead wrong, as well as rather
> Nope.
As predicted. Thanks for proving my point again, kooker. The
fear, ignorance, extreme stupidity, and utter helplessness of
a Cave Man conspiracy kook, if nothing else, is predictable...
<chuckle>
Henry
>> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
> Thanks for posting that.
You're welcome. We should also thanks Ray Fishy for once again
confirming the extreme ignorance, fear, stupidity, confusion,
and helplessness of the typical cave man cartoon conspiracy
kook. Thanks again, Ray. <g>
> Those buildings didn't resist collapsing at all.
Free fall proves demolition. That's why cave man conspiracy
kooks get so stupid, silly, and incoherent when they're challenged
to discuss the video evidence, expert research, and the fundamental
principles of physics.
Iarnrod
<9-11nutjob...@shit-for-brains.kook> foamed in impotent kooker rage:
> Ray Fischer proved my point with:
>
>
>
> >> Ray Fischer backpedaled and weaseled:
Your point was that you are an ignoramus who cannot grasp laws of
physics when you propose your disproven physically impossible claims?
> The
> fear, ignorance, extreme stupidity, and utter helplessness of
> a Cave Man conspiracy kook, if nothing else, is predictable...
> <chuckle>
Have you been hitting the cleaning chemicals again over the weekend,
self-admitted fired janitor?
Hey hankie, when are you going to provide an explanation for how your
physically impossible scenario managed to violate the laws of physics?
Who is this Cave Man you keep referring to?
Hankie is a sad case of what happens when one loses one's job and has
no treatment available.
<chuckle>
Iarnrod
<9-11nutjob...@shit-for-brains.kook> foamed in impotent kooker rage:
> Free fall proves demolition.
And it's been proven it was not free fall.
We see you haven't yet bought a stopwatch.
<chuckle>
*us*
*us*
One can't help but feel some pity for someone
who can't comprehend that Bush and Cheney
wouldn't hesitate for an instant to commit
murderous treason against Americans.
>> Those buildings didn't resist collapsing at all.
>
> Free fall proves demolition. That's why cave man conspiracy
>kooks get so stupid, silly, and incoherent when they're challenged
>to discuss the video evidence, expert research, and the fundamental
>principles of physics.
There's that, of course, plus the fact that Bush
and Cheney did everything they could to make
sure those attacks would occur, and that they
would not be investigated properly.
*us*
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
*us*
Henry
>>> Thanks for posting that.
>> You're welcome. We should also thank Ray Fishy for once again
>> confirming the extreme ignorance, fear, stupidity, confusion,
>> and helplessness of the typical cave man cartoon conspiracy
>> kook. Thanks again, Ray. <g>
>
> One can't help but feel some pity for someone
> who can't comprehend that Bush and Cheney
> wouldn't hesitate for an instant to commit
> murderous treason against Americans.
>
>>> Those buildings didn't resist collapsing at all.
>> Free fall proves demolition. That's why cave man conspiracy
>> kooks get so stupid, silly, and incoherent when they're challenged
>> to discuss the video evidence, expert research, and the fundamental
>> principles of physics.
>
> There's that, of course, plus the fact that Bush
> and Cheney did everything they could to make
> sure those attacks would occur, and that they
> would not be investigated properly.
And of course, the Bush regime vehemently opposed an investigation
into the events of 9-11-01 for well over a year, until they shamed
into accepting it by a group of courageous and dedicated 9-11
widows. Then they refused to testify before the 9-11 commission
until they were again shamed into complying. However, Bush and Cheney
agreed to "testify" only if their lawyers were present, they were not
under oath, they could "testify" together, there was a one hour limit,
and there would be no transcript. To any sane, rational person, this
would not only be very suspicious behavior, but the "testimony" would
be worthless. But to a deluded and gullible Cave Man cartoon conspiracy
kook, it's perfectly fine. Clearly, those people are not of sound
mind...
Henry
> On Jun 21, 5:57 am, Hankie the Self Admitted Fire Janitor wrote:
What's amusing about ironhead is that it appears to be
so stupid that it doesn't even realize that repeatedly
spewing moronic lies about its betters only makes it
appear to be more helplessly insane. Of course, I've never
been a janitor, nor have I ever been fired.
>> Free fall proves demolition. That's why cave man conspiracy
>> kooks get so stupid, silly, and incoherent when they're challenged
>> to discuss the video evidence, expert research, and the fundamental
>> principles of physics.
> And it's been proven it was not free fall.
Two claims by ironhead, and two blatant, moronic, shit brained
lies. Wow, whatta surprise... <chuckle>
The free fall of WTC7 is thoroughly documented in the videos below.
Even NIST has finally been forced to admit this fact. Of course,
ironhead can't tell us where the videos or the measurements are
incorrect, so it simply spews its impotent kooker rage, lies,
and fact free emotional kook rants. Thanks for proving my point
again, nut job. <chuckle>
Proof of free fall is documented below in several short videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
--
Iarnrod
> "28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
"Laws of physics say inside job is physically impossible"
Iarnrod
> Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth of Hankie's stupid kooker ass:
>
> > On Jun 21, 5:57 am, Hankie the Self Admitted Fire Janitor wrote:
>
Nothing is amusing about the brain damage you suffered during your
failed days as a lab janitor, Hankie. It's just so sad that you cannot
even afford a stopwatch to time the collapses to see they were not
anywhere close to freefall, as your many betters already know when
they laugh at you.
*us*
"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
*us*
They have, of course, been terrorized ...
*us*
Iarnrod
> He would know. His points remain undisputed.
His points remain unsupported, kooker, as do your disproven lies.
Henry
> On Jun 22, 6:00 am, * US * documented:
>> "Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal
>> in a company called Securacom that provided security for the
>> World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport."
> Prove it, moron.
> You can't and you won't. You know it's a lie.
> Marvin Bush was not a principal in the company at all, nor did the
> company provide any security for the World Trade Center. FACT that you
> cannot get around.
Amusing thing about ironhead is that whatever it spews is pretty much
guaranteed to be at odds with reality. ironhead "thinks" I've worked
as a janitor but have been fired. Neither claim, of course, has even
a remote connection to reality. That's due to the fact that ironhead
is hopelessly insane.
ironhead also denies that WTC7 suddenly accelerated from rest to
a free fall and symmetric drop. This fact is not only easily verified
through video evidence, but, thanks to the persistent efforts of 9-11
Truth experts has even been acknowledged by NIST. ironhead's insanity
forces it to argue against, NIST, thousands of 9-11 Truth experts,
hard evidence, and reality. As always, here's hard, irrefutable proof.
And of course, none of ironhead's insane reality defying kook rants
and lies are ever supported by any references. This is also due to
the fact that ironhead is insane. It certainly does make an
excellent follower/parrot/sheep of the "official" 9-11 cartoon
conspiracy theory, though. Thanks for helping your many betters
to further discredit that impossible fairy tale through your
repeated kook lies and insanty, ironhead. Really, thanks... <chuckle>
Now, back to the facts, hard evidence, and expert research.
Your belief that nothing but minor ordinary office fires caused WTC7's
free fall and symmetric drop is as silly as believing in The Great
Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy.
Here's why. Let's see if you can actually address the expert research,
hard evidence, and facts, or like most blind faith followers of the
government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, get even sillier and/or run away
frustrated and confused by a challenge to actually read and think. <g>
Obviously, a steel frame that's engineered to support several times
its own weight can not crush itself at the rate of free fall. The
belief that it can, is one of the most comically absurd claims in
your impossible magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.
With regard to 9-11, much like a religious extremist, you believe
what you're told to believe, and you do so out of an emotional blind
faith. Logical, factual, detailed challenges to your blind faith are
met with reactionary emotional denials and a total absence of logic
or reason. That's why you're reduced to spewing childish nonsense
when you're challenged to address the facts, evidence, expert
research, and defend your conspiracy theory. As always, here's hard
proof.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
--
*us*
one thing this expert has stated that would not
be absolutely correct.
He would know. His points remain undisputed.
"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
*us*
It's definitely not sanity for iarnbored to believe
all the Bush/Cheney lies about 9/11, or about
anything else, for that matter.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer proved my point with:
>> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer backpedaled and weaseled:
>>>> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> explained:
>>>>> Ray Fischer timidly lied:
>
>>>>>> See, since you provide no actual facts or data, there is
>>>>>> nothing to refute.
>
>>>>> So, in your "mind", there was no World Trade Center Seven,
>>>>> and it didn't collapse on 9-11-01?
>
>>>> Of course there was, and that just proves me right.
>
>>> Actually, that proves you dead wrong,
>
> As predicted. Thanks for proving my point again, kooker. The
You don't prove anything by being a lying little asshole except that
you're a fanatic with no regard for the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> wrote:
>> As predicted. Thanks for proving my point again, kooker. The
>> Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
> You don't prove anything by being a lying little asshole except that
> you're a fanatic with no regard for the truth.
The hard evidence, experts, and physics prove demolition. If there
was a problem with their research, or a lie, you'd be able to cite
it and refute it rather than prove my point for me by running and
hiding from the hard evidence and throwing your little baby fits.
You seem too helpless, clueless, and weak minded to comprehend basic
concepts of physics and logic, so you simply rant, whine, and cry but
provide no facts or references. That being the case, perhaps it's a
good thing that you rely on government do your "thinking" for you.
You have the mentality of a helpless infant, so you need government
to serve as your parent. Thanks for proving my point again - <chuckle>
Iarnrod
<9-11nutjob...@shit-for-brains.kook> lied:
> Iarnrod continued to expose Hankie for the liar that he is:
>
> > On Jun 22, 6:00 am, * Hates US * completely mischaracterized:
> >> "Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal
> >> in a company called Securacom that provided security for the
> >> World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport."
> > Prove it, moron.
> > You can't and you won't. You know it's a lie.
> > Marvin Bush was not a principal in the company at all, nor did the
> > company provide any security for the World Trade Center. FACT that you
> > cannot get around.
>
Amusing thing about you is that you admit I am right and then try to
pretend you didn't! Is it from huffing the cleaning chemicals on your
former night shift janitor's job?
> ironhead "thinks" I've worked
> as a janitor but have been fired.
To which you admitted.
> ironhead also denies that WTC7 suddenly accelerated from rest to
> a free fall and symmetric drop.
Reality also denies that delusional claim of yours, Hankie. 16+
seconds is not free fall. Please buy a stopwatch and cease
embarrassing yourself.
> This fact is not only easily verified
> through video evidence,
Videos prove me right and you wrong. <giggle>
Iarnrod
> Notice that the bushkultie can't point out even
> one thing this expert has stated that would not
> be absolutely correct.
Actually, you are the bushkultie counter-disinfo shill and YOU cannot
point out even one thing this moron has stated that is true.
You cannot and you will not because none of it is true and you are
afraid to engage the argument, since you know I will expose your lies
as I always have.
> He would know. His points remain undisputed.
His points remain unsupported, nutjob.
Assertion is not proof.
Iarnrod
<9-11nutjob...@shit-for-brains.kook> flailed in impotent kooker rage:
> The hard evidence, experts, and physics prove demolition.
"Demolition" has been conclusively proven to be a complete physical
impossibility.
Produce for us your cartoon magic silent and invisible explosives,
Hankie. Is this the figment of your imagination that drove you nuts on
your night shift janitor job and caused you to be fired? <tee hee>
Henry
> "Demolition" has been conclusively proven to be a complete physical
> impossibility.
So, on planet ironhead, it's physically impossible to demolish
a building, eh? Amusing, but not at all surprising, given that
you're insane. <chuckle>
*us*
>Ironhead continued to amuse its many betters with:
>> On Jun 22, 6:00 am, * US * documented:
>
>>> "Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal
>>> in a company called Securacom that provided security for the
>>> World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport."
>
>> Prove it, moron.
>
>> You can't and you won't. You know it's a lie.
>
>> Marvin Bush was not a principal in the company at all, nor did the
>> company provide any security for the World Trade Center. FACT that you
>> cannot get around.
>
>
>
> Amusing thing about ironhead is that whatever it spews is pretty much
>guaranteed to be at odds with reality. ironhead "thinks" I've worked
>as a janitor but have been fired. Neither claim, of course, has even
>a remote connection to reality. That's due to the fact that ironhead
>is hopelessly insane.
> ironhead also denies that WTC7 suddenly accelerated from rest to
It's definitely not sanity for iarnbored to believe
all the Bush/Cheney lies about 9/11, or about
anything else, for that matter.
Notice that iarnbored can't come up with a single
thing about Bush or Cheney that would cause them
to hesitate before committing murderous treason
against Americans for fun and profit.
*us*
>Iarnrod wrote:
>
>> "Demolition" has been conclusively proven to be a complete physical
>> impossibility.
>
> So, on planet ironhead, it's physically impossible to demolish
>a building, eh? Amusing, but not at all surprising, given that
>you're insane. <chuckle>
Indeed.
*us*
one thing this expert has stated that would not
be absolutely correct.
He would know. His points remain undisputed.
"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
There it is.
Iarnrod
<9-11nutjob...@shit-for-brains.kook> flailed in impotent kooker rage:
> > "Demolition" has been conclusively proven to be a complete physical
> > impossibility.
>
Earth, Hankie the Fired Janitor. We your many betters who reside on
Earth must account for gravity while you do not.
> it's physically impossible to demolish
> a building, eh?
Who said that, Janitor Boy? Certainly not me. What has been proven to
be pysically impossible is the use of man-made controlled demolition
in the collapses of the buildings in NYC on 9/11. Proven fact that can
no longer be disputed.
Iarnrod
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
>
> > Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/
>
> It's definitely not sanity for iarnbored to believe
> all the Bush/Cheney lies about 9/11, or about
> anything else, for that matter.
>
> Notice that iarnbored can't come up with a single
> thing about Bush or Cheney that would cause them
> to hesitate before committing murderous treason
> against Americans for fun and profit.
Notice that you have yet to support a single one of your lying
disproven psychically impossible claims.
Why, you can't even come up with a quote from PNAC saying that it
"wanted" the attacks to occur. That is simply your complete
fabrication.
Iarnrod
> one thing this expert has stated that would not
> be absolutely correct.
Notice that * Hates US * the bushkultie counter-disinfo paid shill
cannot even point out one single thing this "expert" says that is
true.
> He would know. His points remain undisputed.
His "points" remain completely unsupported and contradicted by FACTS
as I have proven beyond doubt.
*us*
>Iarnrod wrote:
>
>> "Demolition" has been conclusively proven to be a complete physical
>> impossibility.
>
> So, on planet ironhead, it's physically impossible to demolish
>a building, eh? Amusing, but not at all surprising, given that
>you're insane. <chuckle>
Indeed.
He even believes the Bush/Cheney lies about 9/11.
*us*
one thing this expert has stated that would not
be absolutely correct.
He would know. His points remain undisputed.
"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
There it is.
Undisputed.
*us*
>http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
>
> Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
It's definitely not sanity for iarnbored to believe
all the Bush/Cheney lies about 9/11, or about
anything else, for that matter.
Notice that iarnbored can't come up with a single
thing about Bush or Cheney that would cause them
to hesitate before committing murderous treason
against Americans for fun and profit.
He can't even understand what PNAC wrote.
Ray Fischer
>Notice that the bushkultie can't point out even
>one thing this expert has stated that would not
>be absolutely correct.
>
>He would know. His points remain undisputed.
That's an obvious lie.
>"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
Why should we believe engineers when we have a government bureaucrat
to believe instead?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
*us*
>...an obvious lie.
It was an obvious lie when Bush and Cheney
claimed they'd had no warning of an attack,
then immediately blamed their scapegoat.
>Why should we believe
You shouldn't believe. You should consider
the facts.
Notice that the bushkultie can't point out even
one thing this expert has stated that would not
be absolutely correct.
He would know. His points remain undisputed.
"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
There it is.
Undisputed.
Based on facts.
Henry
>>> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> explained:
>>>> Ray Fischer timidly lied:
>>>>> See, since you provide no actual facts or data, there is
>>>>> nothing to refute.
>>>> So, in your "mind", there was no World Trade Center Seven,
>>>> and it didn't collapse on 9-11-01?
>>> Of course there was, and that just proves me right.
>> Actually, that proves you dead wrong, as well as rather
>> weak minded and confused. You see, that WTC7 existed and
>> that it collapsed on 9-11-01 are just two of the many "actual
>> facts" stated by 9-11 Truth experts. Your religious, cult like,
>> blind faith belief in the government's 9-11 cartoon fairy tale
>> forces you to spew idiotic drivel and lies such as we "provide
>> no actual facts or data". That was obviously a *very* stupid
>> conspiracy kook lie, and now you've been forced to gag on it.
>> But then, stupidity and lies are about all we ever see posted
>> by mindless followers of the government's impossible 9-11 fairy
>> tale. Thanks for demonstrating that for us yet again. <chuckle>
>> A challenge to read, think, defend their beliefs, and address
>> the actual facts and data sends magic fire/Super Arab conspiracy
>> theorists into fits of confusion and incoherence. You can't address
>> the facts, evidence, and expert research because that would require
>> intelligence, integrity, and a bit of intellectual courage. As
>> a clueless, gullible, and timid sheep, you lack those traits, and
>> you prove it with each timid, fact free kook rant/lie. This is
>> precisely why followers of the "official" conspiracy theory have
>> no credibility among intelligent, informed, thinking people. Thanks
>> for proving my point again. You make it very easy... ;-)
>>
>> Your belief that nothing but minor ordinary office fires caused WTC7's
>> free fall and symmetric drop is as silly as believing in The Great
>> Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy.
>> Here's why. Let's see if you can actually address the expert research,
>> hard evidence, and facts, or like most blind faith followers of the
>> government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, get even sillier and/or run away
>> frustrated and confused by a challenge to actually read and think.
> Nope.
As predicted. Thanks for proving my point again, kooker. The
fear, ignorance, extreme stupidity, and utter helplessness of
a Cave Man conspiracy kook, if nothing else, is predictable...
<chuckle>
Obviously, a steel frame that's engineered to support several times
its own weight can not crush itself at the rate of free fall. The
belief that it can, is one of the most comically absurd claims in
your impossible magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.
With regard to 9-11, much like a religious extremist, you believe
what you're told to believe, and you do so out of an emotional blind
faith. Logical, factual, detailed challenges to your blind faith are
met with reactionary emotional denials and a total absence of logic
or reason. That's why you're reduced to spewing childish nonsense
when you're challenged to address the facts, evidence, expert
research, and defend your conspiracy theory. As always, here's hard
proof.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
According to the government's latest revision/lie, WTC7 "collapsed"
due to nothing but minor ordinary office fires. It was too far from
the towers to suffer any significant damage from their demolitions.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
"Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.
Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Henry
> On Jun 21, 5:57 am, Hankie the Self Admitted Fire Janitor wrote:
What's amusing about ironhead is that it appears to be
so stupid that it doesn't even realize that repeatedly
spewing moronic lies about its betters only makes it
appear to be more helplessly insane. Of course, I've never
been a janitor, nor have I ever been fired.
>> Free fall proves demolition. That's why cave man conspiracy
>> kooks get so stupid, silly, and incoherent when they're challenged
>> to discuss the video evidence, expert research, and the fundamental
>> principles of physics.
> And it's been proven it was not free fall.
Two claims by ironhead, and two blatant, moronic, shit brained
lies. Wow, whatta surprise... <chuckle>
The free fall of WTC7 is thoroughly documented in the videos below.
Even NIST has finally been forced to admit this fact. Of course,
ironhead can't tell us where the videos or the measurements are
incorrect, so it simply spews its impotent kooker rage, lies,
and fact free emotional kook rants. Thanks for proving my point
again, nut job. <chuckle>
Proof of free fall is documented below in several short videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
--
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> wrote:
>> As predicted. Thanks for proving my point again, kooker. The
>> Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
>> Proof of free fall is documented below in several short videos.
>>
>> http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
>>
>> Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/
> You don't prove anything by being a lying little asshole except that
> you're a fanatic with no regard for the truth.
The hard evidence, experts, and physics prove demolition. If there
was a problem with their research, or a lie, you'd be able to cite
it and refute it rather than prove my point for me by running and
hiding from the hard evidence and throwing your little baby fits.
You seem too helpless, clueless, and weak minded to comprehend basic
concepts of physics and logic, so you simply rant, whine, and cry but
provide no facts or references. That being the case, perhaps it's a
good thing that you rely on government do your "thinking" for you.
You have the mentality of a helpless infant, so you need government
to serve as your parent. Thanks for proving my point again - <chuckle>
spudnik
most especially "ordinary trash-fires" or Trickier Dick Cheeny
lighting his bed with a purposely dropped cigar.
WTC7 was very special, infrastructurally, and
that is enough to make for heavy collateral damage,
not due to "impact debris." see,
just because the goment's "pancake" theory is not dispositive,
does not mean that you haven't considered the obvious.
like, what caused the cars in the street, below, to melt?
and, now, nationalize British Petroleum's USA ops!
> According to the government's latest revision/lie, WTC7 "collapsed"
> due to nothing but minor ordinary office fires. It was too far from
> the towers to suffer any significant damage from their demolitions.
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
>
> "Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
> collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
> structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
> of WTC 7."
> The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
> the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
> fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
thus&so:
in other words, it could be a new ice age (glaciation),
which is quite over-due on the orbital synch. now,
the floating ice of the Arctic is inherently unstable,
compared with the massive pile-ups on Antarctica and
Greenland, but the same for the Ross Ice Shelf e.g. (recall,
taht really big berg that broke off of it, about the size
of Rhode Island or some such, whqat a big deal was made
of that. however, it was just a tiny sliver
of the Ross Shelf.
as for British Petroleum's blow-out, I have
to blame it on us Californicators, because
we won't drill off of our own coastline (and, now,
the legislature is considering a tax on that, since
we are the only state that doesn't have one .-)
> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png
> the United States! [or maybe manage a BP oil rig]
thus&so:
you know, the only guy who had a wave named
after him in the 20th century, who wasn't surfer-dood?
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-quasar-caug...
thus&so:
I question that about Franklin, since
electrical polarity (and charge) is rather arbitrary,
in the first place (although they used
to use a flow of positive charges,
what is the same as the flow of "holes," today.)
anyway, so, what is the problem
with Lorentzian dilation of time & length, if
it is not apparent within the relativistic frame?
doesn't it all boil-down to the fact that
the speed (not velocity) of light is the maximum,
such that the internal angular momenta of atoms would
clearly be limited in the direction of the speed
(velocity) of the ship -- is that so hard to see?
-- Rep. Waxman, Pres. Obama and BP, les ducs d'oil;
the last bailout of Wall St. is cap&trade!
http://wlym.com
*us*
*us*
This official's in a position to know:
"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm
There it is.
Undisputed.
Still.