Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Procrastinator35 said:
Not at all.

I even cited their very own website & copied & pasted the archive page dated August of 2006 in previous posts.

Not really my fault if you can't pay attention to details Jack, rather than just focusing upon cheap point-scoring.....Something which appears to be your modus operandi, on the conspiracy boards.

Trey lazy.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, you posted a Q&A in which NIST stated explicitly that they did not support pancake theory. We all laughed and you dropped it (until now). I haven't forgotten.
 
JackOutback said:
If I recall correctly, you posted a Q&A in which NIST stated explicitly that they did not support pancake theory. We all laughed and you dropped it (until now). I haven't forgotten.
Click to expand...

LOL....NIST first mooted the pancake-theory immediately following on from 9/11, & continued to stick by it until August of 2006, when they were forced to retract it & change their tune.

It's all there in the archive I've given you the lead for & posted previously.....Now go do some real research for a change & stop making a fool of yourself.
 
CatFan79 said:
You quoted him without reference... YOU find it.

If I hate muslim terrorists am I a muslim hater?
Click to expand...
You dont refer to terrorists as muslims, you refer to terrorists as islamic terrorists. You dont refer to zionits as jews. You obviously dont know the difference.

You dont refer to neo nazis like Bollyn as christians, you call them KKK or neo nazis. Either way, now that we are done with your video, can i now get an answer to my question? lets start with the proof of the SMS and the live video grab of those explosions LOL....

And a person who was complaining about ad-homs just a while ago.. did someone say h y p o c r i t e?
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

JackOutback said:
If I recall correctly, you posted a Q&A in which NIST stated explicitly that they did not support pancake theory. We all laughed and you dropped it (until now). I haven't forgotten.
Click to expand...
ae911truth.org states pancake theory was never mentioned in the NIST report, i quoted ae911truth.org here in this very thread

He still insists pancake theory is mentioned by NIST, ask him to show the proof. He is just intellectually dishonest.
 
Total Power said:
Here is another 9/11truth site, ffs for once, ADMIT you are wrong. :drunk::rolleyes::thumbsdown:

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/254-...n-towers-civil-engineer-tests-3-theories.html
1. The pancake theory was first advanced by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with the assistance of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), in September 2002. That theory was later abandoned when the investigation was handed over to NIST.


2. The pile-driver theory, which NIST adopted in its official report published in September 2005, draws from the mathematical papers of Professor Zdeněk Bažant of Northwestern University. This theory alleges that the tops of the towers acted as pile drivers, crushing the stronger, larger structures below the floors where the airplanes hit each tower, respectively. Once the lower sections were crushed down, this theory asserts, the tops of the buildings crushed themselves.

There's been no earlier reports, Pancake theory is not NIST's report. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Your lies about NIST taking earlier version of the reports off are now being exposed.

How many times do you need to be slapped around before you admit you have nothing?

funny thing is, i have been quoting conspiracy sites to debunk you. Put up or shut up
Click to expand...

JackOutback

Here ya go, from the biggest 9/11 truther site... P35 is just being dishonest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nut said:
So was 9/11 commission report a conflict of interest?
So was the NIST report "independent" ???

Please stick to the report... attach the report... attack his evidence ...
Click to expand...
the 9/11 commission report wasnt given an answer, and then asked to connect the dots to it.

Your study on the other hand....
 
Procrastinator35 said:
LOL....NIST first mooted the pancake-theory immediately following on from 9/11, & continued to stick by it until August of 2006, when they were forced to retract it & change their tune.

It's all there in the archive I've given you the lead for & posted previously.....Now go do some real research for a change & stop making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...
For everyone's reading pleasure, the link to the posts where P35 was completely embarrassed.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/9-11-part-ii.923196/page-313#post-50756164

He seems to have forgotten. We havent...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Evidence re: pre-attack SMS

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579
Click to expand...
 
BustedWing said:
Welcome back Nut.

When the study was commissioned and paid for by an organisation that WANTED it to find a preconcieved conclusion...yeah - its tainted.

However - looking forward to the peer reviews.
Click to expand...

They WANTED an independent review. Tainted??? You mean like the 9/11 commission and NIST.
 
nut said:
They WANTED an independent review. Tainted??? You mean like the 9/11 commission and NIST.
Click to expand...
Nut...remember when we conversed about this a little while back, and remember when I posted the opening paragraphs of the reports intention?

Do I need to do that again?
 
BustedWing said:
Nut...remember when we conversed about this a little while back, and remember when I posted the opening paragraphs of the reports intention?

Do I need to do that again?
Click to expand...

No I don't... do yes.

I love how you are attacking the report before you have even read it.

Waiting for the smear campaign... oh hang on it's already started
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top