Les Robertson's contradictions...

[JimBenArm]

And you quote the unscientific, secret, and Govt Nist Report constantly.

Do yourself a favor, question why the govt would not allow people to survey the wreckage at WTC who were tasked to do so, remove evidence from a crime scene, withold eyewitness statements for years and tie them up in courts, appoint administration insiders to the commision, not allow victims families to have they're questions answered, allow the Pres and VP to testify behind closed doors and not under oath..I could go on and on.
As a taxpayer and US citizen, these politicians answer to me, not the other way around.. I want access to everything that happened that day, and it gets withheld, i want whistleblowers to be able to be heard, and all scientific findings and tests be made public.
Thats what this country is all about.
And you support this anti science and secrecy we as citizens have every right to see, shame on you man.

You want access? What is your security clearance? Do you think just being a taxpayer gives you the right to see and hear everything in the US Government? Really? How simplistic.

 

[beachnut]

And you quote the unscientific, secret, and Govt Nist Report constantly.

Do yourself a favor, question why the govt would not allow people to survey the wreckage at WTC who were tasked to do so, remove evidence from a crime scene, withold eyewitness statements for years and tie them up in courts, appoint administration insiders to the commision, not allow victims families to have they're questions answered, allow the Pres and VP to testify behind closed doors and not under oath..I could go on and on.
As a taxpayer and US citizen, these politicians answer to me, not the other way around.. I want access to everything that happened that day, and it gets withheld, i want whistleblowers to be able to be heard, and all scientific findings and tests be made public.
Thats what this country is all about.
And you support this anti science and secrecy we as citizens have every right to see, shame on you man.

Wrong, I am an engineer, I understand how 9/11 happen, you are the one with no real knowledge who copies 9/11 truth junk and posts it freely, lies and all without thinking.

The wreckage of the WTC was studied. You are Wrong again.

There are no whistleblowers, it has been 6 years, the only people who do not understand 9/11 are you and 9/11 truth. You and 9/11 truth lack knowledge and the skills needed to understand 9/11.

No, I am able to use evidence to make rational conclusions, you are able to cut and paste lies and post them constantly like a cult member in the dumbest movement ever. What will you post next?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And to add... independent groups from institutions like Purdue, seem to be accused of 'being in on it', just for getting results that agree with NIST and verify their findings... If it does not suit their position it's immediately discredited

 

[Drudgewire]

And to add... independent groups from institutions like Purdue, seem to be accused of 'being in on it', just for getting results that agree with NIST and verify their findings... If it does not suit their position it's immediately discredited

Forget every law enforcement agency, government entity, businesses with ties to the military, and the zionists. Simply getting the engineering department of Purdue and the editorial staff of a car magazine on board flies in the face of every single "it only required a handful of people to pull off 9/11from the inside" claim ever brought forward by this stupid movement.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I can't see the point in this argument, the buildings could have survived a hit by a 707 at 600 miles an hour and did survive a 767 at ~500mph. We all know that.

Convince me that anyone in 1964 did a full scale fire analysis of how that impact would affect the fire protection, spread jet fuel fires so as to ignite the building contents, and what those content fires would do to the steel of the building over a period and time, and that they then come to the conclusion the buildings would still stand and you might have a case. As of yet there is zero evidence of that, and a three page paper certainly never covered that sort of detail.

 

[Dave Rogers]

liar

You've called me a liar, then posted a response that confirms every word I said. Your claim was that "war games going on that morning, which were obviously planned well IN ADVANCE, were regarding this very scenario". Let's look at what you yourself say about the war games going on that morning.

Hard evidence for the hypothesis first began surfacing in August 2002, when it was revealed that the CIA had scheduled an evacuation drill at the National Reconnaissance Office on the morning of Sept. 11, based on the script of an "errant plane" hitting the NRO headquarters. The drill was cancelled when the real-world events began, and most of the NRO staff, who control the military-intelligence establishment's surveillance satellites, were sent home. One man who helped plan the drill, John Fulton, actually put it on his resume as an example of his prescience

The NRO evacuation drill was based on the scenario of a plane crashing accidentally into the building after takeoff from the airport nearby. Since there wasn't a hijack involved, this wasn't "this very scenario", and since it was a simple building evacuation drill, this wasn't "war games going on that morning".

However, Vigilant Guardian appears to have scripted simulated attacks within the continental United States. NORAD personnel in Rome, New York who received first reports of hijackings within NORAD'S Northeastern sector, including Col. Robert K. Marr and Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, are reported to have asked if this was "real world or exercise." This implies that the scenarios for the wargames on September 11 were strikingly similar to the actual attacks that unfolded that morning--as was the supposedly unrelated CIA/NRO exercise

These were, presumably, the "war games going on that morning" that you refer to. What you've posted above is speculation that the scenario was "strikingly similar", but other sources make it clear that the scenario included a traditional hostage-taking hijacking, and not a suicide attack.

Therefore, I've given references that back up what I say, and yours don't contradict them on any point. Why, exactly, are you calling me a liar?

Dave

 

[PhantomWolf]

I said I was about to head to bed, but just checked this, so I'm going to answer then go. The Hijack senario for Vigilant Guardian was a single airliner outside of US airspace being hijacked and taken to a "Cube-like" island where it would be landed and political asylum demanded.

 

[AZCat]

I said I was about to head to bed, but just checked this, so I'm going to answer then go. The Hijack senario for Vigilant Guardian was a single airliner outside of US airspace being hijacked and taken to a "Cube-like" island where it would be landed and political asylum demanded.

"Cube-like"?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Bleah, it was like 3:40am, give a man a break. Cuba

 

[peteweaver]

The towers did survive the impact. They didn't survive the subsequent fires which exacerbated the damage beyond the design tolerances, and reduced the load bearing capability of the remaining structure around the impact floors.

 

[Blender Head]

What was the war game that Peter Jennings mentioned on his news show about a plane impacting the WTC?

 

[roundhead]

The towers did survive the impact. They didn't survive the subsequent fires which exacerbated the damage beyond the design tolerances, and reduced the load bearing capability of the remaining structure around the impact floors.

Thats a tough thing to believe, as in the case of one tower, there was basically little that remained of the structure above the impact zone, to clobber the intact structure below and cause it to dissappear.

If the upper structure was perfectly intact, it would definately provide a debatable point.

As the upper structure was basically blown up before it even contacted the lower structure, its ability to bring the whole perfectly intact lower floors down is so low in probability, that i have debated it, watched the video's countless times, and concluded with very,very little doubt some other force obliterated the lower structure.

 

[JimBenArm]

Thats a tough thing to believe, as in the case of one tower, there was basically little that remained of the structure above the impact zone, to clobber the intact structure below and cause it to dissappear.

If the upper structure was perfectly intact, it would definately provide a debatable point.

As the upper structure was basically blown up before it even contacted the lower structure, its ability to bring the whole perfectly intact lower floors down is so low in probability, that i have debated it, watched the video's countless times, and concluded with very,very little doubt some other force obliterated the lower structure.

That force is called gravity. Maybe you've heard of it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thats a tough thing to believe, as in the case of one tower, there was basically little that remained of the structure above the impact zone, to clobber the intact structure below and cause it to dissappear.

If the upper structure was perfectly intact, it would definately provide a debatable point.

As the upper structure was basically blown up before it even contacted the lower structure, its ability to bring the whole perfectly intact lower floors down is so low in probability, that i have debated it, watched the video's countless times, and concluded with very,very little doubt some other force obliterated the lower structure.

Yes, totally blown up....