Swishing in a skirt
Can't find his own thought
And he's more likely bought

I know that the jet fuel melted the steel even though it couldn't have. I KNOW that building 7 just collapsed because, well I KNOW there were no explosives involved. I KNOW that the people who reported multiple explosions in the towers all said so just to protect bin Laden and the other terrorists. I KNOW that evil muslims hijacked four planes and slammed them into their targets even if they don't appear in any security videos at the airports. I KNOW that finding a passport in the street is proof positive that the person pictured in it was on the plane that crashed nearby. I KNOW that our government did everything possible to prevent the planes from hitting their targets. I KNOW flight 77 vaporized once it hit the Pentagon. I KNOW that Mark Bingham is a bona fide hero. I KNOW the dancing Israelis were... JUST DANCING! I KNOW they weren't REALLY Mossad agents, even though it was reported in Israeli newspapers and TV shows. I KNOW that there really are bloodthirsty Muslims out to get me, and that because they're also out to destroy Israel, that I should naturally consider Israel my bestest buddy ever and not complain when they defend themselves by shooting little Palestinian kids with rocks. I KNOW those little rocks could put one of the IDF heroes' eyes out. I KNOW that because of our shared values that Israel loves and protects its bestest friend Amewica.

Thank you Anonymous for helping me to acknowledge that I have been LIVING A LIE!! I'm going to go immediately to sign up for Project David to help other Americans learn about the shared values and lack of ethnic cleansing going on in Israel, and how 9/11 truthseekers are just anti-semitic holocaust deniers who detest jews and want to defend muslim terrorists because they can't stand living with FREEDOM.

THANK YOU!! Keep fighting the good fight, Anon, you'll soon have us all singing the praises of America's Mayor AND our our own George "Winston Churchill" Bush!!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

God DID make the unicorns, right? I mean--the UNICORNS are real, right??? Please tell me they are!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

Here are PLENTY of eye witnesses that talk about it!

One of the video clips you can CLEARLY hear an explosion happening!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

You can't deny it. It's in the record.

Where is it? And when you say something wasn't found, shouldn't you also say that it wasn't actually sought either?

And what is "explosive residue"? Is that, as it sounds, residue that explodes? Do you mean residue from explosives? I think maybe you do. Did the New York Times not report on the mysterious sulfidization of steel from the towers?

So who's blocking threatening info, Anon?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Ernie has done us the courtesy of posting a good explanation of his own behavior in this post.

For trolls, denial is

"(a) defense mechanism where certain information is not accessed by the conscious mind. Denial is related to repression, a similar defense mechanism, but denial is more pronounced or intense. Denial involves some impairment of reality. Pathological denial is irrational denial in the face of conclusive evidence."

and

"The above series of studies may give rise to the speculation that self-deception does not differ from simple pathological denial. However, Paulhus and Reid (1991) demonstrated that although denial was one component of self-deception, self-deception contained a very strong ego-enhancement component. Presenting evidence that enhancement was more negatively correlated with depression than was denial, these authors concluded that self-deception has an active role in enhancing happiness. Thus, self-deceivers not only block threatening information, but actively search for information to enhance the self."

I think the fact that these guys compulsively repost the above text in various threads is really a cry for help.

Anon, you keep repeating that you "demonstrated conclusively" the no explosisive residue was found in the WTC dust, yet you contiually refuse to provide any link or any data whatsoever to support your conclusion.

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously this way??

You are a total bonehead RT. You forgot one other major point that we all know for a fact here in the real world...there are no video cameras on the Pentagon. None, zippo, nada...get it? There is no reason to secure this building, so we must be content with the Citgo tape because it is all the FBI has. Get the story straight there mister man!

?

:)

We all just have to learn to accept that our local convenience store has better security cameras than the Pentagon.

.

The people who have really made history are the martyrs. ~ Aleister Crowley

Laurel and Hardy, that's John and Yoko. And we stand a better chance under that guise because all the serious people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Kennedy and Gandhi got shot. ~ John Lennon

Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you angry! ~ Aldous Huxley

What do the nationalists say about killers punishing murderers and thieves sentencing looters? ~ Kahlil Gibran

I was being sarcastic, of course the Pentagon is loaded with surveillance cameras. They have the videos, and they are crisp and clear. They just can't share them.

I was too.

.

I meet the sincere man with sincerity and the insincere also with sincerity. ~ Lao Tse

An angry man opens his mouth and shuts up his eyes. ~ Cato

It is not power that corrupts but fear. The fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. ~ Aung San Suu Kyi

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? ~ Douglas Adams

that I have to even wonder if people get it. :)

The 10 points that are mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg of the NIST report. A closer examination of section 1-6 (A-D) reveals even more deceptive practices on NIST's part. For example,

In 1-6A NIST determine fire proofing loss using both their shotgun test and a computer model. Kevin Ryan has pointed out the energy required was simply not available, but giving NIST the benefit of the doubt, their modelling shows most of the loss would have been near the impact zones of the planes, and not for instance on the South face of WTC1. In 1-6B, NIST performs floor model tests on the floor assemblies and derive ASTM E-119 time temperature curves as well as fire endurance ratings. In 1-6C NIST attempt to concoct full floor computer models of the towers, but instead of using their actual results from 1-6B to establish baseline performance, NIST simplies the floors down and have them sagging at over 40 inches. NIST never validates it's full floor models against any physical tests, which are neccesary to validate the correctness and accuracy of any FEA approximation. Also in 1-6C, NIST can only get 2 out of 9 test cases to show significant inward pull forces on the exterior columns, and only using the most severe and unrealistic input. They require that all fireproofing be stripped off of the columns and floor assemblies over a 3 story area, temperatures that are higher than their previous modelling showed (see 1-5), and for longer durations than any of the fires were in any part of the tower. In 1-6D, NIST tries to put it all together into a global collapse model but they can't quite make it. First, they need their 2/9 test case to be true so they assume away all the fireproofing, completely contradicting their results in 1-6A (they even say that they were "mistaken", but don't bother to explain why or how!) Then they plug in the results from 1-6C floor model tests and guess what? No collapse and no bowing of external columns (they say this in the report). So they throw out 1-6C altogether and substitute direct pull in forces on the columns that are not derived from any experiement or logical process, but trial and error. After continued fudging, they finally get some bowing and clap their hands and say "Global collapse ensued."

I really recommend that everyone read the NIST report, on both sides, to see what it really does say and if NIST actually proved any of its Summary of Conclusions. A very careful reading of the report reveals that it does not indeed support the assertion of global collapse.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

Here are PLENTY of eye witnesses that talk about it!

One of the video clips you can CLEARLY hear an explosion happening!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Or do you just repeat over and over that others have refuted everything? That seems to be what all of you shills do. But see, you're only helping to convince those who are, like you, determined to believe what they want.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

"• NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses
suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view."

NIST in thier OWN document state that they DID NOT investigate the use of CD! They NEVER tested for residue from explosives because they did not investigate the possibility of it!

NIST does not explain how the Antena on WTC1 fell first, when it was ATTACHED to the cores???? The cores could not have collapsed until the OUTER parts started to fall! Yet the Antena, which was supported by the cores, and connected to them, fell moments before the collapse. What caused the Antena to sink before the sides started to collapse?????? The core could not, would not, collapse in that fashion without an EXTERNAL force (and no the plane is not an external force in this case).

Please Mr. Wizard..... Enlighten us with your magic! Tell us all here how that Antena, supported by the Core, started sinking before the impact part collapsed!

PHYSICS says it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Statistically well over 100 TRILLION to ONE!

Never said anything about inside job, I am just pointing out that NIST failed to make the case for their probable collapse sequence. I fail to see the point in blithely accepting NIST's conclusions without first verifying the data to support it. If you didn't notice, most reports, essays, papers, etc. in academicia, economics, science, or business have something called a "body", that usually provides analysis and evidence to support the "conclusions". I guess you would advocate that we do away with that and merely state conclusions, since they must always be "true". Oh I forgot, that's the bias of the political method and has no place in the investigation of the murder of 3000 people.

LOL, you do have have an overactive imagination. I assume nothing when it comes to "structural engineers" supporting the NIST report. I have heard that Leslie Robertson supports the report, but I have also heard that Charles Pegelow does not. At this point I have yet to hear definitive support or skepticism from the engineering community but I can tell you that ARUP in the UK has taken issue with the report (they do not model expansion due to heating) as well as the New Civil Engineer. The primary problem is that NIST is unwilling to debate its report, even with engineers who support the fire theory but have taken issue with NIST's particular theory. Need I remind you that the track record of the explanations for the collapses has not exactly been stellar:

1. (FALSE) Tower Meltdown (Bazant and Zhou, various "experts" in the days after) - 800C+ temperatures in core - No WTC7 explanation

2. (FALSE) Pancake theory (ASCE, FEMA BPAT, MIT) - Never a full collapse theory (the use of the phrase "possibly free standing columns" failing) and now disproven by physical tests and NIST, very improbable WTC7 explanation (by FEMA's own account)

3. (FALSE) Weidlinger report - Low temperature column failure with fire proofing loss - Similiar to NIST but contradicted by NIST's temperature estimates and collapse theory (role of floors) - No WTC7 explanation

4. (Yet to be determined) NIST report - Latest report on collapses, currently excludes WTC7

We've had a myriad of "explanations" that have are all mutually exclusive and promulgated by largely the same set of people. Now, as I recall many 9/11 truth researchers criticized these reports and at the the time proponents of each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among engineers and, similiar to your tact, that these researchers were merely talking out of their ass. Unfortunately for the "engineers" (and yourself), the truthers are batting 1.000 to their 0.000 so far. Does this mean that NIST is thus wrong? No, but it means that the blanket acceptance of the latest theory promulagated by "experts" should be taken as just that, a theory. Appealing to authority here is really laughable considering the appaling track record of these theories and anyone who chooses to merely restate NIST's conclusions without verifying their data and analysis is engaging in the worst form of doublethink and intellectual dishonesty.

so true what you say--at every turn "all the structural engineers in the world" have agreed with whatever official story happens not yet to have been debunked.
The way these shills are screwing up I wouldn't be surprised if we have a breakthrough before X-Mas!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force