40 'Smoking Guns' Collectively Proving That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima,

Dude? What is wrong with you? Read the title of the thread.

40'Smoking Guns'......

You have posted at least 15 times on this thread...YOU clicked on the title.


40'Smoking Guns'

40'Smoking Guns'

40'Smoking Guns'

Geeeeesh

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Dude? What is wrong with you? Read the title of the thread.

Whats wrong with you and the OP? Why is it so hard to answer a simple question?

WHAT SOURCE DID YOU USE TO GET THE 40 ITEMS?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Look at post #1Ultima. It came from DRG's Book: A New Pearl Harbor.

Since i cannot get an answer to a simple question i will keep posting anyway.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Complete and total ignorance shown here. Appearantly, Mr Griffen is completely unaware that it was the damage AND the fire that caused the buildings to collapse. The south tower, suffered from far greater stresses due to the angle of impact, and the position of the impact.

Speaking of ignorence, the 9/11 commission reports state that the SOUTH tower had less damage then the NORTH tower due to the fact that the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building. (also why more people made it down form the upper floors becasue of less damge to the one stairwell.

NIST is the only agency to state that it was a combination fo plane impact and fire that casued the collapse, even though thier original model stated NEITHER plane impact or fire caused the collapse.

Most other reports state that the fire alone caused the collaspe.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Look at post #1Ultima. It came from DRG's Book: A New Pearl Harbor.

Why couldn't you state that in the first place when asked?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Since i cannot get an answer to a simple question i will keep posting anyway.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Complete and total ignorance shown here. Appearantly, Mr Griffen is completely unaware that it was the damage AND the fire that caused the buildings to collapse. The south tower, suffered from far greater stresses due to the angle of impact, and the position of the impact.

Speaking of ignorence, .....................

Ultima... the post you quoted actually gives you the source.

GRIFFIN (i put an emphasis on it for you)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Look at post #1Ultima. It came from DRG's Book: A New Pearl Harbor.

Why couldn't you state that in the first place when asked?

Why can't you read the OP ? Geepers!

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Speaking of ignorence, .....................

But i have sources that debate the South tower having more damage then the North tower.

Also have sources that the combination of plane impact and fire DID NOT casue the collapse as NIST reports.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Great... put the links to their work up here. Thank you.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Great... put the links to their work up here. Thank you.

Please see the 9/11 commision report, Staff Statment #13 for facts about the South tower NOT having as much damage as the North tower.

At 9:03 a.m., the hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 hit 2 WTC (the South Tower) from the south, crashing through the 78th to 84th floors.

What had been the largest and most complicated rescue operation in city history instantly doubled in magnitude.

The plane banked as it hit the building, leaving portions of the building undamaged on impact floors. As a consequence—and in contrast to the situation in the North Tower— one of the stairwells (Stairwell A) initially remained passable from top to bottom.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima,

I may be mistaken, but wasn't the NIST report released after the 911 Commission was released?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I may be mistaken, but wasn't the NIST report released after the 911 Commission was released?

Which NIST report? You do know that the 9/11 commision hired NIST to do reports for them? (which they did not agree with some and did not post them)

The original NIST model report stated that neither the impacts or fires caused the collapse. Also it has been shown that NIST reports are contridicting.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


NIST didn't release their final report until over a year AFTER the 911 report was released.

July 22,2004 - 911 Commission Report Released.

October 26, 2005 - NIST released their final report.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
NIST didn't release their final report until over a year AFTER the 911 report was released.

October 26, 2005 - NIST released their final report.

Its just too bad the final report contridicts most of the other reports, specially the original model report.

Also the NIST final report is the only report that stated a combination of imact and fire casued the collapse. Most reports state the fire alone casued the collapse.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I have read some speculation about that. Haven't seen any papers though.

Got any links?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Got any links?

For witch part?

The contridiction betweem the NIST model report and final report?

The reports on the fire alone casued the collapse?

[edit on 20-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Dude? What is wrong with you? Read the title of the thread.

Whats wrong with you and the OP? Why is it so hard to answer a simple question?

WHAT SOURCE DID YOU USE TO GET THE 40 ITEMS?

why cant you just read. not only have i answered this directly to you MULTIPLE times, i have also alread said the following....

40 cam from the title of this thread
if you like, we can use a different number, we can go have this talk on another post with a different number if you like. it was stated here that ALL 40 have been debunked.
all 40 what?
items in the first post
oh there were 40?
yes
someone said they were all debunked?
yes, whole list, all 40
so then what?
i said that is not true, not ALL 40 have been debunked.
and...?
some special case with no reading comprehension or the ability to decipher meaning from the very english words he uses keeps asking where the number 40 comes from.
what? no way. did he even read the thread title he clicked on to get here?
i guess but then he still doesnt understand why went with 40
does he understand context?
i guess not
sigh
i know
40 -in the title of the thread
40 stated that swampfox debunked all 40
i replied to the thread, referring to its use of 40 items
i replied to a statement specifically stating all 40 items were debunked
i said no they were not (they being the 40 items listed in the first post that this thread refers to that i keep referring to because this is the thread i am on)

have we cleard up 40 for you yet?

even throatyogurt had to stand on my side for a second to tell you that. if throatyogurt and i agree on something, you must be saying ome crazy stuff.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Look at post #1Ultima. It came from DRG's Book: A New Pearl Harbor.

Why couldn't you state that in the first place when asked?

if you wanted to know where the OP got 40 from as inthis linking it t the book a new pearl harbor, then why didnt you address that to the OP. you asked me 5 times where i got 40 from. and i answered about 10 times now where i got it from and you still couldnt get it until someone references a book?
how about the thread 121 smoking guns? want to go there? i will say the same thing
all 121 have not been debunked.
and then you can ask over and over where 121 came from, wont that be fun, shortbus?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Speaking of ignorence, .....................

But i have sources that debate the South tower having more damage then the North tower.

Also have sources that the combination of plane impact and fire DID NOT casue the collapse as NIST reports.

now i get it.
first you spend pages arguing over where the number 40 comes from on a thread titled "40 smoking guns." and then you proclaim over and over that you cannot get a straight answer after i answer you each time explicitly. then you finally shut up about it when someone ssay sthe op got it from a book and you whine that no one told you sooner. can you read at all? do you bother to look at evey word? often it is the whole sentence that really makes things tick.
no you go from arguing with me, about what im not sure anymore, to arguing with throatyogurt.
if you were paying any attention, you would see that throat yogurt and i have the exact opposite beliefs here. what side are you on?
are you just looking for fights?
just looking to make people angry?
just being a jerk because for some reason you can?
you are not helping either truthers or debunkers so you need to either make it clear what you are tryng to accomplish with your posts or shut up and go somewhere else.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Speaking of ignorence, .....................

But i have sources that debate the South tower having more damage then the North tower.

Also have sources that the combination of plane impact and fire DID NOT casue the collapse as NIST reports.

lololololololol

it would seem that you are now attacking yogurt for not believing you about the same thing you spent yesterday telling me i was wrong about. you are too funny. you argue both sides. must be fun to just pick fights for no reason. no, wait, sad. that was the word i meant. must be sad to sit around looking to fight with truthers and debunkers alike over the same points.