This was referenced on Jim Fetzer's radio show where he interviewed Alan Ayoub. He did pretty well under the circumstances and was interested in getting as much information across as possible rather than getting annoyed by O'Reilly's comments.
This idiot taught "critical thinking" and "logic" ? USA is going downhill bigtime if guys like this can become profs... Even NOAM CHOMSKY (the ORIGINAL truther for everything else) dimisses the 911"truther" movement as nonsense.
1. Of ALL the thousands who would have to be involved in this massive so-called inside job, not one whistleblower?!
2. Bush Admin blamed Afghanistan?! Why didn't they blame oil-rich Libya or even Iraq right away? Woulda had world support & made much easier to invade..
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
Oreilly Is An Est Whore, Who iS a Scary Mary And And A Closet Gay, He Should Have The Courage To Come Out And Liberate Himself, This Interview Was A Complete Farse, Why Do Fox News Employ People Like Him , Well Ithink That People Like Him And Hannity And Most Of The Est Whores Who Live In Their Ivory Towers Are Ideal For The Propaganda The Beildeberge And Rothchilds Controll
When The NWO Blair And Bush And The Above Go To The Hague I hope That People Like Oreilly Will Be Put On Trial As Well
Bill'Os Scientific research is based upon who in the media accepts what the professor is saying, What happened on 9-11 Is determined by how many MSM news outlets accept or reject a story!
What the hell crawled up O'Reilly's ass. This guy may be nuts, but he remains pretty claim given O'Rilly's comments. But this is the way he treats all his guests. All of these Conservative commentators act like this: Hannity, Levin, and to a lesser degree Rush. They're all wound pretty tight. Damm, switch to decaf!
@shaboo2 You are right, anyone who questions the story about the little old man in the cave knocking down 3 buildings with 2 jets and stopping the USAF from intercepting these jets has got to be a LOON A KOOK, A TINFOIL HAT NUTCASE!
And you Mr O'Reilly are a Zionist tool. Your premises are totally off the mark. If you cannot think of any other possibility then you are ignorant. If you know better then you are either a coward or a willing sychophant to the Jews that sign your pay check.
If you would like to hear Professor Fetzer's views without interruptions go to blogtv.com/people/freeusamericans..... show on June 27th 2011- Where we will ALLOW professor Fetzer to explain what he has researched!
Typical Bill O'Reilly. Attack the messenger instead of addressing the evidence presented. Bill, you're the nut. The media - of which you're a part - is as corrupt as the government. You're a whore, Bill. The people are seeing through your tactics and they aren't buying your lunatic rants any more. Anyone who questions their government is a patriot. Anyone who just goes along to get along is a mindless sheep, or a media whore.
...cmon O'Reily. If you hate your country you leave it. If you LOVE your country - you do everything you can to ensure it's survivability. Including questioning the government, demanding proper conclusive investigations where there have been only questionable ones that indicate coverups. We've had veils over our eyes. You think your ignorance and not caring is bliss. there's a reason things you choose to ignore tthings that upset you. Happy pills and ignorance are not the answers.
I just Dont get it... You host a show, invite someone, SHOUT AT HIM, INSULT HIM, and DONT EVEN LET HIM SAY A WORD ?!!?!?!?!? You can actually count on two hands the number of words that Dr Fetzer was allowed to say during a 6 MINUTE INTERVIEW !!!!! what is this, an invitation for on-air scolding, and sending back home ???
What a cunt!! What a fucking cunt!! Gesticulating and squirming like a prima donna! Like a fucking gay on heat!! O'Reilly says Jim can't get in the papers and there's Jim sitting on Sky!! LOL Who needs newspapers when you can use Sky!! O'Reilly calls Jim a nut and a loon. So why does O'Reilly have Jim on? Probably so O'Reilly can shoot his mouth off. Well done, Jim! You treated the cunt O'Reilly with the contempt he deserves. The whore O'Reilly should get the fucking sack! Fucking asshole!!
@KiIIU99 Well I can't agree with your language but I must agree that essentially you are correct.
O'Reilly is just a blow hard - a big mouth who insults Jim simply because he thinks he can. However I feel O'Reilly will find himself out of a job on Sky quite soon. Sky is cracking down on this sort of behavior. Gratuitous insults hurled at interviewees. Calling someone a loon or a nut is verbal abuse. Jim, of course, knows that his time on Sky is the best publicity he can get and it's FREE!!
Nothing that oreilly says to fetzer makes his case against him any "truthier" as colbert would say.....all he does is use the power of having a show on ruppert murdocks playground to defame or assualt his character.....and did he just say the students don't know much?????? wow bill oreilly is a joke!
I'm amazed that conseratives entire platform is the "GOV"T SUCKS" yet they cry foul when liberals or even other conseratives happen to question the gov't motives when it comes to war, then all of a sudden the Gov't is beyond reproach and shouldn't be question, while I don't agree with O'Reilly guest, it's pathetic that O'Reilly trys to paint him as "Un-American" because he happens to question what the Gov't tells us, this same logic doesn't apply when Beck spews his nonsense.
Even the crazy people think this guy is crazy. You can't make this stuff up, it's just too funny.
The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.
Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer—such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers—were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule.
By December 2006, Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.By 2007, James Fetzer had been openly rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement, banned from and criticized on popular forums and no longer invited to public 9/11 events.
DavidSChandler (youtube screen name) has compiled the data from events surrounding 9/11. He's dry and monotonous to listen to, but he bears listening to. NIST agreed, inviting his questions to the NIST tech briefing. NIST has since pulled the video of the tech briefing from their website. It can still be viewed on DavidSChandler's channel, along with other disturbing information you can see with your own eyes.
I don't ask you to believe me or him. Use your EYES and MIND.
I give full credit to David S. Chandler and the Architect and Engineers for 9/11 truth for the data-mining of NIST's report. I do not claim this is an independent discovery of mine at any point. I am merely disseminating information from a public document we paid $16 million to read.
I thank them for their donated time to force NIST to revise their report so the truth would out.
I recommend people watch the video of the NIST tech briefing in which NIST was cornered to report the truth.
@thx291 Gee, sarcasm. You're ... subtle. How about this?
You've done tons of research, and you know what happened. Hell, you were THERE, and I'm an idiot for not deferring to your vastly superior intellect.
You're extremely shrewd, using an ingenious tactic of pretending to be patronizing! This means you DON'T have to know anything, you just have to placate the 'dangerous country-hating loons' like me! You are a GENUINE defender of truth!
@thx291 But you're right. That's all you want to hear. I'm actually busy having a much more rewarding discussion with an aerospace engineer who is actually modeling the collapse, in an effort to support the official narrative. It's a nice contrast talking to someone who is governed by the facts. Hint: not you.
If anyone wishes to follow THAT discussion, feel free.
No name-calling, no bullshitting, a simple discussion that DOESN'T rule out CD, because it can't be ruled out yet. Facts rock.
@thx291 Your generalizations are a dodge as well. Another tactic.
I say that NIST claims WTC7's global collapse was at free fall. It's a fact.
That doesn't require a leap to 'controlled demolitions'. It requires a new investigation. But, in order to demonize that position, which has at its HEART a desire for the truth, your response, aside from blandly lying, is to paint questioners as mentally imbalanced.
The coffins of US vets also aren't on the major news media. I guess THEY don't exist, either. I guess that's irrefutable PROOF that anyone who says people died in Iraq are country-hating crazies.
@thx291 You're ridiculous. You dodge the facts, paraphrase an -averaging- statement, and deny the quotes posted four times. All of this after you said you were giving the last word, and continue to troll, call names, and refuse to engage the facts.
I'm not glad you do this. You should be ashamed to use such monkey-minded tactics to support something NIST -isn't- claiming any longer. Would you like to see the video of S. Sunder and Michael Gross acknowledging free fall?
Saying that NIST denies freefall because of the '40% of free fall argument' is saying the same as this:
A parachutists jumped from a plane, opened his chute and landed. He NEVER achieved free fall, if you count up all the time he spent in the plane, and AVERAGE the time from that point until he hit the ground.
Hence, NO parachutists ever achieve free fall, and anyone who says so is a crazy country-hater.
Just...wow...the level of stupidity it takes to reason like that.
@thx291 And there's the typical debumpkin response. Instead of looking at p.45, figure 3-15, and NIST's own words, you just jump like a moron to the Bill O school of 'call names and declare victory'.
You can appeal to the monkey-minded, and you do. I suppose NIST is straight-jacketed, too? It's their report, available for anyone to read.
And WTC7 achieved free fall for over half of the global collapse. Scientific fact, not in dispute by anyone credible.
@thx291 I love how you continue to deny I quoted NIST, and that I'm the only one of us two so far to do that, and how you deny four times that I quote them RIGHT AFTER THE FOUR TIMES I quote them.
@thx291 Okay, putz. I realize you're incapable of honest debate. The quote I put up four times is in the report. Lie and deny, it changes nothing. You didn't QUOTE NIST, you summed up what you wanted them to say, and I clarified it.
We both know it.
NIST's data is irrefutable. Its claim and conclusions are not irrefutable.
Data represents the truth. You don't.
It's not a conspiracy to hide the truth on your part. It's pure ignorance and refusal to look at ALL the data.
@thx291 I realize you can't admit what I've proven. Some people will be fooled, as NIST hopes, by the trick of 'averaging' the overall collapse. You were. But when it comes to the DATA of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE at FREE FALL, they acknowledge what anyone can see with their own eyes. The vast bulk of the building SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY collapses at free fall, supposedly from asymmetrical fires.
It's a simple matter of intelligence, and you're failing.
@thx291 I've now quoted it three times, cited the page, the data figure, and shown how YOUR 'averaging' quote was used by a debumpkin to deny what NIST itself admits. AGAIN: "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
@thx291 Again, the report DOES say it, I've quoted it twice, and pointed right where it says it. Page 45. Figure 3-15.
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
Period. You're looking more foolish each time you deny this.
@thx291 This is what you're saying: page 44, talking about the ENTIRE collapse, including the EPH, which fell earlier, and counting to the end of the collapse, when AVERAGED, was 40% greater than free fall.
You realize I AGREE with this.
What you're MISSING is that sudden-onset GLOBAL collapse is what's in contention.
So I point you to page 45, the DATA regarding global collapse.
And figure 3-15.
What's so hard about that? Free fall is a FACT of the global collapse, hidden by 'averaging'.
@thx291 Okaayyyyyy. How many ways do I have to say it? I posted the direct quote twice, posted instructions on figure 3-15, listed the page, and even said use Control+F (find feature on some browsers), and keyword 'free fall'.
Re-read this entire thread. You seem to be having great difficulty with simple data-mining.
I've been called a liar by another poster, thx291.
Here's my contention: I have -quoted- NIST's data, not their CONCLUSION, and been called a liar for it. Would a third-party care to look at the information I've quoted? It's in NIST's own report, NCSTAR1a, released November 8, '08.
Figure 3-15 is the graphed data of free fall, and NIST's own words are 'free fall' and 'acceleration of gravity'. Am I lying?
@thx291 You're ignoring the FACT of figure 3-15, so yes or no:
On page 46, does NIST use DATA, instead of the CONCLUSION you quote-mined?
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
ANYONE can research this, and I challenge them to do so.
Simple facts, and you can check NIST's own report:
Stage 1 of global collapse: Building ACCELERATES up to acceleration of gravity (called free fall in laymen's terms as well for clarity) for 1.75 seconds.
Stage 2 of global collapse: Building ACHIEVES acceleration of gravity, and maintains it for 2.25 additional seconds.
Stage 3 of global collapse: Building beings to decelerate until collapse conclusion, over 1.4 seconds.
SIMPLE analysis shows WTC7 was in free fall for half the global collapse.
@thx291 I quote AGAIN: ""In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s""
Where exactly are you missing ACCELERATION of GRAVITY and FREE FALL in NIST's own report, and that rate and speed are graphed in figure 3-15?
@thx291 NIST did try to back up YOUR erroneous beliefs, however, with their 3D models. Which is interesting, because an 8-year-old can see their models bear no resemblance to the actual collapse. Again, why believe a nutbag troofer, eh? Go look, smartass. You pick any one of their models, and tell me ANY of them look like the collapse we can all see with our own eyes from any number of angles.
@thx291 "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
Sorry it's so FACTY and stuff, when you just quoted a CONCLUSION, instead of the data. The conclusion isn't supported by their own MEASURABLE, OBSERVABLE and PUBLISHED data. It's just the shortcut lie
@thx291 STFU and read the quote, bro. They're not HIDING the data, they're trying to obfuscate it. Get an adult to help you with the big words. You're not arguing the facts here. You're ignoring them.
@thx291 Gotcha in a distortion., quote-mining instead of using the facts.
Research figure 3-15. "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
Your 40% figure is derived by AVERAGING the rates, and is clear evidence of trying to hide the actual data.
@thx291 And when it comes right down to it, NIST's final report was released in Nov-Dec of '08, and the fact has been there for two years. FOX is two years behind in just WAFFLINGLY acknowledging what they could cover in ten seconds:
NIST ADMITS ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY AND FREE FALL IN BUILDING 7.
The fact that you STILL don't know that and that it hasn't been covered on ANY MAJOR NETWORK is -exactly- why your entire case is just blather. FOX is coming around.
@thx291 Now you're reversing, and shilling. Where is it written that the TV news is the arbiter of fact? I'd LOVE to see them cover what EXACTLY is said in the official report on WTC7, and they STILL didn't. It's simple.
NIST, the National Institute of Science and Technology, has clearly admitted free fall in WTC7. This isn't controversial.
The idiotic claims are yours. READ THE REPORT.
And then step up like you're debunking. All you're doing is shilling a lie.
So, either we're now to assume FOX isn't legitimate, or the major media is waking up.
Rosie said it as well, on The View before her firing. I do equate The View with about as much journalistic integrity as Bill's shows, by the way.
NIST admits free fall in WTC7, which the AE911truth engineers have been talking about since 2003. NIST's report and the tech briefing weren't on major news, because they waffled and stammered
@thx291 YES THERE IS. Bill O is stating an opinion. Whoopee. However, you're mistaken about your assessment of major media. Or you're saying FOX isn't genuine. Earlier this year, Geraldo covered WTC7's collapse from a much more open-minded stance, as the mystery that won't go away.
But let me understand you: A fact is only a fact if a major TV news show stands behind it as a fact?
Know what's backwards? Anyone who DID, you'd simply say wasn't genuine. Circular reasoning isn't REASONING.
@thx291 I'll explain what it means to you, a debumpkin goon. You spend where you place importance. Your ridiculous argument that Clinton getting a blow job merited $40 million in expense (considering the slam dunk $500 cost of of DNA test) somehow exculpates any consideration of governmental involvement displays no critical thinking.
Millions of witnesses to...?
Osama? Caves? The actual highjackings? Or just the collisions themselves?
Bill is disgusting. He uses the weakest argument,"your a nut". He doesnt even have an argument. He only trys to discredit the sayer. This is the problem with our society. We let folks gain power by peer acceptance. So when the mass population gets sick all hail the evil chiefs. Bill's answer is " you think were bad"? "were the good guys". What a simpleton.As if killing others in Iraq would be a good solution to our woes anyway. My goodness Bill, reality is on its way.
@uranorexic You know less about the law than my 8-year-old.
Let me air this for all to hear:
uranorexic is going to get the former President and Vice President to sue me for libel in open court. Y'know, because he's an attorney with connections.
Anyone here believe THAT lie?
I answered your questions, you ducked mine. I love how often you deny it, when it's gone on for four pages.
Why didn't anyone prosecute them? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BALLS.
Fetzer can't get any legitimate news organization anywhere in the world to air his views. And yet......he's on FOX.
So....let's follow the logic. Either FOX isn't a legitimate news organization, or...Bill was just wrong, since he's sitting there 'interviewing' Fetzer.
Am I the only one who can spot the double-talk, double-think backwards-ass approach to reality here?
@uranorexic Again, you duck the obvious. Time to answer my question, or realize WHY everyone knows you're an intellectual coward.
Why spend $40 million impeaching Clinton, and only $3 million investigating 4 separate plane crashes that caused billions in damage and killed 3000 people, and is STILL killing people to this very day?
@uranorexic I have answered. You make a fool of yourself. How much 'balls' does it take to drag a president into court over marital infidelity? NONE. And to spend $40 million to do it while only spending $3million to investigate the largest crime in American history shows how LITTLE balls they have.
I have answered you, and you lost. You keep asking the same things, over and over, ignoring the answers obvious to an adult.
You fear MY challenges and questions, and your attacks have no impact.
@uranorexic I'm an actual American patriot, not a little posing Nazi, like yourself.
See, you're what's wrong with this country. You use the word traitor without having the slightest idea what it means.
I'll stay right here, and kick the living DOGSHIT out of trailer-trash lying scum like yourself who think that the stupidest people should decide who gets to speak.
Because seriously, you need the shit kicked out of you.
I say that with great love, knowing it would do you some good.
@uranorexic You're not an attorney, unless you're taking time out from chasing ambulances to post for hours on YouTube.
Why didn't they go after Bush? Because the actual power in this country does NOT FLOW FROM CONGRESS. If you think Democrat/Republican means a damned thing, you're a bigger fool than you sound, which is HUGE.
The power in this country does NOT flow from elected officials, and the Senate needs to get re-elected. They're cowards, pure and simple.
@uranorexic I supplied the sources to evidence. You fear to read them.
It's okay. You're safey-wafey in your little trailer.
Actually, the buildings falling too fast is DIRECT SCIENTIFIC evidence, and only YOU would deny that as evidence of simultaneous column failure. Even NIST had earlier said that if there was freefall, their theory would fall.
Then they admitted freefall, and ignored its implications. FACT.
"I don't want to read specific EVIDENCE given to the Senate investigative commission, because that's just people talking."
Able Danger was tracking and WARNING about 6 of the highjackers a year in advance, and tried to WARN Ashcroft. They were ignored. When they blew the whistle, they were punished.
@uranorexic You haven't made 10 grand in your life, and you haven't earned it here.
Sibel Edmonds....stop slobbering. Look it up.
Generic? She named names. Whacko? She's a triple-degree trilinguist working for FBI linguistics analysts who openly testified that her translations were being systematically altered or misinterpreted to cover up for advanced knowledge. PERIOD.
But since you're really just here to call names and suck Bill's dick, I know you won't bother to read. Reading is hard. Waa!
@uranorexic No, but it contradicts your point, perfectly.
I'm sorry, but I seem to be making you very hypertensive. Your mouth, which sounds like after-hours in a trailer park, goes into high gear, saying nothing, ripping out junior high level insults, and my guess is, you think you're doing anything but pulling down your pants to boast your shortcomings.
Go beat your wife, I'm sure she's late with your meds.
@uranorexic Because I have fun watching the REAL whackos. The hate-mongering, fear-spewing, fact-hiding, fact-altering, fact-avoiding puppets at FOX news.
You know...your heroes.
When your IQ hits triple digits, you'll see Bill for exactly what he is.
Maybe. You seem to be pretty much in love with rabid entertainers posing as journalists.
@uranorexic AGAIN, micro-mind, Cheney was testified against for his part in the bunker.
Ashcroft was implicated in the testimony of Able Danger.
The CIA was clearly implicated at putting those terrorists in America by Springmann, and if you think that "W" wasn't aware clearly that they were HERE, and plotting an attack, then there's no hope for you. You like Bill O'Reilly, and you want someone who doesn't think, to think for you.
@uranorexic Absolutely, they did. But here's you, all over the place, spraying your froth...and this is OBVIOUS...without even ONCE reading up on the sources.
Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer had his classified clearance revoked, Sibel Edmonds was fired and threatened with death, J. Michael Springmann was transferred and threatened.
For fuck sake, if you're not just some slobbering moron, READ THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTS about their testimony. THEN you can talk.
@uranorexic No, simpleton, but you're like arguing with molten shit.
You don't NEEEEEEEEEED everyone covering it up. Not everyone IS, as I clearly proved. You just need to get a stranglehold on the key positions in government, which they have, child. WAKE UP.
I answered your questions and juvenile insults repeatedly. I truly do respect your absolute right to be wrong, obnoxious, ignorant, naive and and impotent liar.
Admit it Bill, Jim put you in your place . Why is FOX people seem to be in dream land? Notice Bill has no proof of what he says in this interview. Bill brings a guest on and becomes one sided. Are the Bill O'Reilly suppose to think he is great??
@uranorexic Prejudice much? Look m8, you are not an american, you are a human being. Say it with me, say it: "I am a human being!" Yeah, you can do it!
Oh, I see you are an attorney (why do you put your profession in capital?) aswell. Hmm, that explains your lack of common sense, because we all know by now that the legal system is not about justice at all, it's about control, and the people promoting that corrupt system are ten times as crazy as those crazy conspiracy fucks, yeah!
@uranorexic You already have a fool retard educating yourself. You.
Care to list how many former lobbyists ARE in the administration? I can. Care to guess how many got lobbyist jobs after they left? One and the same, kiddo.
@uranorexic You're a lying buffoon. Lawyer. My ass.
But hey, good luck. I'm sure Governor Bush is just waiting for someone like you to give me my day in court. I've listed TONS of evidence to implicate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the administration.
By the way, when you DO come through with your summons, your name will be on it, yes? Of course. We'll review this little convo as part of the evidence.
I think it'll be interesting to see if you've done a little libeling here, eh?
It's a damn good thing that disgusting piece of shit isn't a TV personality in Australia..we don't play that shit over here. What the fuck is wrong with you America!? You fuck heads actually watch that shit!? For shame!! Fuck you Bill. If I see you in the street I'm going to kick your nuts into your fucking mouth.
@uranorexic I have addressed it, you idiot. Arrested? Who's going to do it? The Attorney General?
Fucking read, which you just don't do.
By the way, I just realized you actually believe it matters which party is in power, as if there's a big difference between being a Repugnican or Democrap. Lobbyists buy BOTH sides, because that's their job.
HA! Like you have any traction with the former administration. They're LAUGHING at you, because you BELIEVED them.
@uranorexic Libeled? You're a complete idiot. You state how they DIDN'T order the EPA to declare the post-attack air SAFE, when they knew it was a toxic cocktail CERTAIN to kill people. This isn't disputed by anyone credible.
It was done to re-open Wall Street, showing AGAIN that money was more important than civilians trying to save lives.
The Bush-Cheney administration at the very LEAST was guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter.
Charges that should be laid around the necks of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the direct operants of 9/11: High Treason Murder Crimes Against Humanity Subornation of Perjury Voluntary Manslaughter Conspiracy to Murder, and all of the above Dereliction of Official Duty Obstruction of Justice Destruction of Crime Scene Evidence Multiple RICO violations Unlawful Wiretapping Each and every charge can be proven without a doubt, and they will never be charged. The fix has been in for 30+ years.
@uranorexic Wait, now you're saying that NIST said WTC7 was blown up by an airplane? Good God. READ SOMETHING.
NIST admits to 2.4 seconds of symmetrical freefall. They don't HAVE to admit explosives. There is not one fire-borne cause that could produce that effect. They know it. YOU should know it.
You'll be waiting until doomsday to get the clue you lack, and even then, you'll put your fingers in your mismatched ears, and go lalalalala.
What an idiot you are in your little monkey outfit.
@uranorexic You realize of course you're the only one whom you're talking to, right? You don't have an audience.
Okay, quick lesson for Captain Stupid:
1. The US Attorney General would have to charge them. With me so far, idiot?
2. The US Attorney General, appointed by Bush, Henry Gonzales. Know -anything- about him? Like...how long he worked for Bush? Why he couldn't be fired, but HAD to resign? I know it's a lot at once, take a breath.
3. What would happen if someone DID get charged? Any IDEA
@uranorexic Yo, slow-coach. Do you think we just BOUGHT them one day and dropped them? Has it ever popped up in your vast reading how LONG it took to develop them in complete secret?
Of course not. You're a buffoon.
I've answered your questions SPECIFICALLY.
You're wrong about someone being tried for it, you refuse to look up Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer, Sibel Edmonds, J. Michael Springmann, or ANYONE who's blown the whistle.
@uranorexic Wait, wait..you're ACTUALLY saying the government doesn't commit crimes, much less MONUMENTAL ONES?
Are you REALLY this naive? You can't walk around this blind, chump.
You think this is the first time we've staged a false flag operation? Do you actually believe that? Or are you actually uninformed enough to believe we NEVER have, and NEVER would? Is that your whole case?
You've already lost. Sorry, that's just -history-.
@uranorexic You talk a lot, and you have yet to say a thing.
The Manhattan Project is CLEAR proof that tens of thousands of people can keep a secret for over a decade. PROOF that it HAS happened.
The thing you and the debumpkins keep trying to miss is that this ISN'T as big a secret as you keep claiming. Able Danger exposed 6 of these guys a year ahead of 9/11, and got GAGGED by the Pentagon.
Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer. Look it up and shut the fuck up, moron.
@uranorexic Actually, someone HAS been arrested, tried, and sentenced. Where the fuck have you been?
You overuse the word 'fool' and anyone can figure out why. You've been hurt by the word, and anyone can figure out THAT, too. I guess if enough people call you a fool, rather than REALIZE you're a fool, you just start using the word like you have a clue.
You don't, and you know it. That's why you insult instead of citing sources.
@uranorexic That's just a full of shit statement, and since you don't bother to document, you're just shrieking. Calm down, simpleton. Grab a source, and post it.
Otherwise, you're just the loud kid in the theater who gets bitch-slapped.
@uranorexic Okay, stupid...here's the problem. NIST is the one saying 2.4 seconds of freefall. Follow it so far? So you go right on and show me where Sci-Amer says otherwise, okay? I'd -love- to see it.
I can read. I can read an official report and see the tacit admission of demolition with my own eyes, as could you, if you were doing anything more than ranting.
Here's my 9/11 theory, now you just go prove me wrong:
WTC7 experienced 2.4 seconds of symmetrical freefall. FACT.
@uranorexic All you're saying is you don't know a thing. READ the NIST report, simpleton. Who cares what you 'allow'? You're a nobody on YouTube.
NIST has no explanation for the 2.4 seconds of acceleration of gravity, but they were very clear that it occurred. Do you need an adult to read it to you?
You don't get to call anyone a dumbass without the irony invoking chuckles.
@uranorexic So, basically, Scientific American called NIST's Final Report on WTC7 a lie? Here's a fact, clueless.
2.4 seconds of absolutely acknowledged unrefuted acceleration of gravity.
Now, you just whip out your source. Scientific American? I'll be requiring the date, author, issue number and article title from you. FACTS, remember?
You WILL show me where they dispute 2.4 seconds of ACKNOWLEDGED freefall of WTC7, and offer ANY explanation for simultaneous column collapse. Get busy, bitch.
@uranorexic The New York Times covered Able Danger. The SF Chronicle has an ongoing coverage of Sibel Edmonds' case. Where have YOU been? You don't READ the major media, illiterate dipstick.
Vanity Fair covered J. Michael Springmann, and so did all THREE networks.
Bill isn't doing JOURNALISM, I agree, and thanks for admitting it.
You just rant. I'm self-employed, and I talk to people almost daily about 9/11 and the bullshit 'official story'. Most people have eyes and ears. You speak for YOU.
"Me read big article with words and things and me am sure of facts...except name of magazine or article, or facts. You am loon, me am mighty internet warrior."
Take a breath, and take a pill, kid. DEEEEP breath, your hysteria will pass.
Then read some major newspapers covering MANY of the aspects of the cover-up.
But to address your point: The Manhattan Project went secret for 11 years, employed TENS OF THOUSANDS of people. Voila. It's been DONE.
@uranorexic But let's come back to EARTH, shall we?
General Electric, they own a media. Does GE have any defense contracts?
Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX....any ties to the defense industry?
I realize you, Bill, and ALL the network news pundits are all about ignoring the truth, but that's only because the REAL dumbfucks are the Bills of the world.
Bill won't LISTEN to the guy. He's AFRAID of the facts, and his only 'rebuttals' are to call names, point to media sleep, and act like an assclown.
@uranorexic You don't get to call names, non-reader. Did the NY Times cover Able Danger?
Did it cover the FBI involvement in the 93WTC bombing? Are you saying this right here on a video where a major media is 'covering' it? They may not agree with it, or even dare to argue the FACTS, instead of just calling names, but Bill's COVERING it.
Did major media cover Sibel Edmonds?
You have no idea, do you? READ
Quoting "Animal House" Dean Wermer like it's your own is a new degree of pathetic. You lose.
so o'reilly's basis of argument against fetzer's claim is that fetzer is a nut???
wow... that's it billo.. you're argument is overwhelming... there's no way all of fetzer's facts and data can prove you wrong, because.... you claim he's an america-hating nut...
Wipe his sperm off your mouth. Watch again. Fetzer DID answer the question, and Bill talked over him. I'm -certain- you have no idea who Carl Bernstein is, or you'd realize the IMPACT of Bill's answer.
FACT:
Carl Bernstein is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who blew the lid off of Watergate in the 70s, and makes a clear case for CIA infiltration and manipulation of the major media.
Whenever he can't go toe-to-toe with someone intellectually, he says they hate America. To say that reasoned judgement is hateful to America is kinda like saying ignorance loves America.
on the front page of the NY TIMES WOW THAT IS WORSE THAN GODFATHER III "O REiLLY IS ONE OF THEM CAN"T BELIEVE YOU CAUSE YOUR ONE OF THEM>>>>> don't believe this guy unless you like wiping wounds on your ass
@uranorexic no elvis is dead. i never ever ever said bush killed those people. you assumed that. i say it is branches of a government that either knew about it before hand or planned it. i never said it was bush himself personally murdering those people. sanctions in our government orchestrated the attacks or had knowledge of them before hand but did nothign to prevent it.
@uranorexic dude i explained it earlier to you. the CIA own all media outlets which is why they wont cover it. and even if they do they wont go into enough detail about it. there is a video from BBC that shows live footage on the day of "the attacks" and a woman or man explaining that WTC Building 7 had just "collapsed" but you can clearly see in the background WTC 7 Builing standing and stable. they had predicted it falling about 22 minutes or so before it even happened.
O'Reilly! clearly in love with bush! what a wanker!!!!
aanathanaa 1 month ago
The title of the video should be: "O'REILLY NAMES MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS IN ON 9/11 COVERUP"
maplespak 1 month ago
O reily keeps talking and talking, this is no journalism at all, all show
fredontube 2 months ago
He didn't let James speak for half a minute!!!!!
marilysrios 3 months ago
O'reaaaaallllyyy, Bill???!!!!!!!
marilysrios 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 ✡ ✈ ▌▌
jasonthemankiller 3 months ago
/watch?v=GKLl5V6s6L8&feature=related
jasonthemankiller 3 months ago
This was referenced on Jim Fetzer's radio show where he interviewed Alan Ayoub. He did pretty well under the circumstances and was interested in getting as much information across as possible rather than getting annoyed by O'Reilly's comments.
JonesTarpley 4 months ago
This idiot taught "critical thinking" and "logic" ? USA is going downhill bigtime if guys like this can become profs... Even NOAM CHOMSKY (the ORIGINAL truther for everything else) dimisses the 911"truther" movement as nonsense.
1. Of ALL the thousands who would have to be involved in this massive so-called inside job, not one whistleblower?!
2. Bush Admin blamed Afghanistan?! Why didn't they blame oil-rich Libya or even Iraq right away? Woulda had world support & made much easier to invade..
primomobile 5 months ago
O'Reilly is not only a cunt... he is the most unpatriotic American...
Massaricossudo 5 months ago
O'reilly is a cunt.
callofpaul 6 months ago 3
must be some talk show. O'Reilly is the guest?
TheMrBennito 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
vechorik 5 months ago
Oreilly Is An Est Whore, Who iS a Scary Mary And And A Closet Gay, He Should Have The Courage To Come Out And Liberate Himself, This Interview Was A Complete Farse, Why Do Fox News Employ People Like Him , Well Ithink That People Like Him And Hannity And Most Of The Est Whores Who Live In Their Ivory Towers Are Ideal For The Propaganda The Beildeberge And Rothchilds Controll
When The NWO Blair And Bush And The Above Go To The Hague I hope That People Like Oreilly Will Be Put On Trial As Well
MrShambolick 7 months ago
Bill'Os Scientific research is based upon who in the media accepts what the professor is saying, What happened on 9-11 Is determined by how many MSM news outlets accept or reject a story!
MrBullfrog9876 7 months ago
Does that Fascist prick ever shut up? What a knob! Great interview, if there had been one!
williamkanegateshead 7 months ago
What the hell crawled up O'Reilly's ass. This guy may be nuts, but he remains pretty claim given O'Rilly's comments. But this is the way he treats all his guests. All of these Conservative commentators act like this: Hannity, Levin, and to a lesser degree Rush. They're all wound pretty tight. Damm, switch to decaf!
univibe23 7 months ago
This is the one and only time I have ever agreed with Bill O'Reilly. Fetzer is the biggest kook in the universe.
shaboo2 8 months ago
@shaboo2 You are right, anyone who questions the story about the little old man in the cave knocking down 3 buildings with 2 jets and stopping the USAF from intercepting these jets has got to be a LOON A KOOK, A TINFOIL HAT NUTCASE!
MrBullfrog9876 7 months ago
And you Mr O'Reilly are a Zionist tool. Your premises are totally off the mark. If you cannot think of any other possibility then you are ignorant. If you know better then you are either a coward or a willing sychophant to the Jews that sign your pay check.
DonDKitty 8 months ago
If you would like to hear Professor Fetzer's views without interruptions go to blogtv.com/people/freeusamericans..... show on June 27th 2011- Where we will ALLOW professor Fetzer to explain what he has researched!
FreeUSAmericans 9 months ago
@Factmaster2020M Moron
Dr1Canuckchuck 9 months ago
Typical Bill O'Reilly. Attack the messenger instead of addressing the evidence presented. Bill, you're the nut. The media - of which you're a part - is as corrupt as the government. You're a whore, Bill. The people are seeing through your tactics and they aren't buying your lunatic rants any more. Anyone who questions their government is a patriot. Anyone who just goes along to get along is a mindless sheep, or a media whore.
Dr1Canuckchuck 9 months ago
Bill Oreilly is just a fucking tool....period The evidence has nothing to do with hate you dumbfuck
nrgjunky1 9 months ago
i totally butchered grammar in that last comment. DIE GRAMMAR. I STABBETH THEE.
prawdaeh 10 months ago
...cmon O'Reily. If you hate your country you leave it. If you LOVE your country - you do everything you can to ensure it's survivability. Including questioning the government, demanding proper conclusive investigations where there have been only questionable ones that indicate coverups. We've had veils over our eyes. You think your ignorance and not caring is bliss. there's a reason things you choose to ignore tthings that upset you. Happy pills and ignorance are not the answers.
prawdaeh 10 months ago
And you main stream media when you accused Ben Laben few hours after the events did you have any kind of evidence?
Vitriol007 10 months ago
@Vitriol007
Yep, and that is because the CIA wants you to know!
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--William Colby, former CIA Director
rmccay88 10 months ago
I just Dont get it... You host a show, invite someone, SHOUT AT HIM, INSULT HIM, and DONT EVEN LET HIM SAY A WORD ?!!?!?!?!? You can actually count on two hands the number of words that Dr Fetzer was allowed to say during a 6 MINUTE INTERVIEW !!!!! what is this, an invitation for on-air scolding, and sending back home ???
dimshosta 11 months ago
whether or not hes right or wrong Bill was very ignorant and should have let him speak his side not lash out at him personally
kermit368 1 year ago
Bill O'Reilly is a dickhead but every singel word he said here is true!
Espmell 1 year ago
@Espmell
l0l0l0l0l your associating bill o reilly with the word "truth"? hahahhahahahahahahahaha
2ndT0M3h 1 year ago
What a cunt!! What a fucking cunt!! Gesticulating and squirming like a prima donna! Like a fucking gay on heat!! O'Reilly says Jim can't get in the papers and there's Jim sitting on Sky!! LOL Who needs newspapers when you can use Sky!! O'Reilly calls Jim a nut and a loon. So why does O'Reilly have Jim on? Probably so O'Reilly can shoot his mouth off. Well done, Jim! You treated the cunt O'Reilly with the contempt he deserves. The whore O'Reilly should get the fucking sack! Fucking asshole!!
KiIIU99 1 year ago
@KiIIU99 Well I can't agree with your language but I must agree that essentially you are correct.
O'Reilly is just a blow hard - a big mouth who insults Jim simply because he thinks he can. However I feel O'Reilly will find himself out of a job on Sky quite soon. Sky is cracking down on this sort of behavior. Gratuitous insults hurled at interviewees. Calling someone a loon or a nut is verbal abuse. Jim, of course, knows that his time on Sky is the best publicity he can get and it's FREE!!
txIee1 1 year ago
Nothing that oreilly says to fetzer makes his case against him any "truthier" as colbert would say.....all he does is use the power of having a show on ruppert murdocks playground to defame or assualt his character.....and did he just say the students don't know much?????? wow bill oreilly is a joke!
tribukaribe 1 year ago
I used to like to watch Bill O'Reilly but lately I'm thinking that he is the #1 PINHEAD!
neverquit35 1 year ago
Burn in hell O'Reilly
jeffedinboro09 1 year ago
I'm amazed that conseratives entire platform is the "GOV"T SUCKS" yet they cry foul when liberals or even other conseratives happen to question the gov't motives when it comes to war, then all of a sudden the Gov't is beyond reproach and shouldn't be question, while I don't agree with O'Reilly guest, it's pathetic that O'Reilly trys to paint him as "Un-American" because he happens to question what the Gov't tells us, this same logic doesn't apply when Beck spews his nonsense.
TheDalinkwent 1 year ago
Even the crazy people think this guy is crazy. You can't make this stuff up, it's just too funny.
The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.
wormwoodacoustic 1 year ago
Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer—such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers—were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule.
wormwoodacoustic 1 year ago
By December 2006, Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.By 2007, James Fetzer had been openly rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement, banned from and criticized on popular forums and no longer invited to public 9/11 events.
wormwoodacoustic 1 year ago
o reilly is a fucken cunt!
aanathanaa 1 year ago
@aanathanaa And you're a stupid idiot.
IwshIcldstrtover 1 year ago
@DrKranski CTers suck the dogs cock, while dreaming it is Jim Fetzer, and are impressed.
TwoofersRMorons 1 year ago
Typical America. You wouldnt get away with talking to the guests like that in the UK.
O reilly you are a fucking dirty scabby yank
ChristianHolloway7 1 year ago
O'Reilly is such a whack job media whore. He needs a good enema,
coolmamac 1 year ago
Demonstrations of fact:
DavidSChandler (youtube screen name) has compiled the data from events surrounding 9/11. He's dry and monotonous to listen to, but he bears listening to. NIST agreed, inviting his questions to the NIST tech briefing. NIST has since pulled the video of the tech briefing from their website. It can still be viewed on DavidSChandler's channel, along with other disturbing information you can see with your own eyes.
I don't ask you to believe me or him. Use your EYES and MIND.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
I give full credit to David S. Chandler and the Architect and Engineers for 9/11 truth for the data-mining of NIST's report. I do not claim this is an independent discovery of mine at any point. I am merely disseminating information from a public document we paid $16 million to read.
I thank them for their donated time to force NIST to revise their report so the truth would out.
I recommend people watch the video of the NIST tech briefing in which NIST was cornered to report the truth.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 Gee, sarcasm. You're ... subtle. How about this?
You've done tons of research, and you know what happened. Hell, you were THERE, and I'm an idiot for not deferring to your vastly superior intellect.
You're extremely shrewd, using an ingenious tactic of pretending to be patronizing! This means you DON'T have to know anything, you just have to placate the 'dangerous country-hating loons' like me! You are a GENUINE defender of truth!
Why bother READING? It's all wordy and stuff.
You win.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 But you're right. That's all you want to hear. I'm actually busy having a much more rewarding discussion with an aerospace engineer who is actually modeling the collapse, in an effort to support the official narrative. It's a nice contrast talking to someone who is governed by the facts. Hint: not you.
If anyone wishes to follow THAT discussion, feel free.
No name-calling, no bullshitting, a simple discussion that DOESN'T rule out CD, because it can't be ruled out yet. Facts rock.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 Your generalizations are a dodge as well. Another tactic.
I say that NIST claims WTC7's global collapse was at free fall. It's a fact.
That doesn't require a leap to 'controlled demolitions'. It requires a new investigation. But, in order to demonize that position, which has at its HEART a desire for the truth, your response, aside from blandly lying, is to paint questioners as mentally imbalanced.
So, guess what! WMD's existed! Iraq did 9/11!
I seen it on de TEE BEE! It's a FACT! Ass.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Hey, Bill:
The coffins of US vets also aren't on the major news media. I guess THEY don't exist, either. I guess that's irrefutable PROOF that anyone who says people died in Iraq are country-hating crazies.
What kind of logic is THAT?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 You're ridiculous. You dodge the facts, paraphrase an -averaging- statement, and deny the quotes posted four times. All of this after you said you were giving the last word, and continue to troll, call names, and refuse to engage the facts.
I'm not glad you do this. You should be ashamed to use such monkey-minded tactics to support something NIST -isn't- claiming any longer. Would you like to see the video of S. Sunder and Michael Gross acknowledging free fall?
Do you know who they are?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 You're not debating.
Some simple questions:
Does NIST say the building came down at free fall, more specifically 'acceleration of gravity' on p45 or not?
Does figure 3-15 show that over HALF of the global collapse was in free fall?
Does figure 3-15 show that an additional third of the global collapse was racing to ACHIEVE global free fall?
Does NIST admit that 1.75 seconds into the global collapse, there was NO column support?
These are yes or no questions. Can you handle that?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Saying that NIST denies freefall because of the '40% of free fall argument' is saying the same as this:
A parachutists jumped from a plane, opened his chute and landed. He NEVER achieved free fall, if you count up all the time he spent in the plane, and AVERAGE the time from that point until he hit the ground.
Hence, NO parachutists ever achieve free fall, and anyone who says so is a crazy country-hater.
Just...wow...the level of stupidity it takes to reason like that.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
So, in summation:
a couple of dickwads, being Bill O and a shrill poster on this thread, make this their entire case:
The major media hasn't headlined this information. And all truthers are crazy country-haters. How very scientific.
FACTS:
FOX news covered the collapse of WTC7 -finally- in a balanced report, two years after the data was released.
NIST admits free fall in WTC7.
If someone wishes to discuss the FACTS, and not just hone infantile playground behavior, I'm open to discussion.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 And there's the typical debumpkin response. Instead of looking at p.45, figure 3-15, and NIST's own words, you just jump like a moron to the Bill O school of 'call names and declare victory'.
You can appeal to the monkey-minded, and you do. I suppose NIST is straight-jacketed, too? It's their report, available for anyone to read.
And WTC7 achieved free fall for over half of the global collapse. Scientific fact, not in dispute by anyone credible.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 I love how you continue to deny I quoted NIST, and that I'm the only one of us two so far to do that, and how you deny four times that I quote them RIGHT AFTER THE FOUR TIMES I quote them.
You're a nutjob.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 Okay, putz. I realize you're incapable of honest debate. The quote I put up four times is in the report. Lie and deny, it changes nothing. You didn't QUOTE NIST, you summed up what you wanted them to say, and I clarified it.
We both know it.
NIST's data is irrefutable. Its claim and conclusions are not irrefutable.
Data represents the truth. You don't.
It's not a conspiracy to hide the truth on your part. It's pure ignorance and refusal to look at ALL the data.
You have my pity.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 I realize you can't admit what I've proven. Some people will be fooled, as NIST hopes, by the trick of 'averaging' the overall collapse. You were. But when it comes to the DATA of the GLOBAL COLLAPSE at FREE FALL, they acknowledge what anyone can see with their own eyes. The vast bulk of the building SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY collapses at free fall, supposedly from asymmetrical fires.
It's a simple matter of intelligence, and you're failing.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 I've now quoted it three times, cited the page, the data figure, and shown how YOUR 'averaging' quote was used by a debumpkin to deny what NIST itself admits. AGAIN: "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
Anyone can check it. You lose.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 Again, the report DOES say it, I've quoted it twice, and pointed right where it says it. Page 45. Figure 3-15.
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
Period. You're looking more foolish each time you deny this.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 This is what you're saying: page 44, talking about the ENTIRE collapse, including the EPH, which fell earlier, and counting to the end of the collapse, when AVERAGED, was 40% greater than free fall.
You realize I AGREE with this.
What you're MISSING is that sudden-onset GLOBAL collapse is what's in contention.
So I point you to page 45, the DATA regarding global collapse.
And figure 3-15.
What's so hard about that? Free fall is a FACT of the global collapse, hidden by 'averaging'.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 Okaayyyyyy. How many ways do I have to say it? I posted the direct quote twice, posted instructions on figure 3-15, listed the page, and even said use Control+F (find feature on some browsers), and keyword 'free fall'.
Re-read this entire thread. You seem to be having great difficulty with simple data-mining.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
But let's go it a step further: download the NIST report on the Final Collapse of WTC7.
Use Control+F and keyword 'free fall'. Look at ALL the entries that come up. STOP when you get to the DATA regarding it.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
I've been called a liar by another poster, thx291.
Here's my contention: I have -quoted- NIST's data, not their CONCLUSION, and been called a liar for it. Would a third-party care to look at the information I've quoted? It's in NIST's own report, NCSTAR1a, released November 8, '08.
Figure 3-15 is the graphed data of free fall, and NIST's own words are 'free fall' and 'acceleration of gravity'. Am I lying?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 You're ignoring the FACT of figure 3-15, so yes or no:
On page 46, does NIST use DATA, instead of the CONCLUSION you quote-mined?
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
ANYONE can research this, and I challenge them to do so.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Simple facts, and you can check NIST's own report:
Stage 1 of global collapse: Building ACCELERATES up to acceleration of gravity (called free fall in laymen's terms as well for clarity) for 1.75 seconds.
Stage 2 of global collapse: Building ACHIEVES acceleration of gravity, and maintains it for 2.25 additional seconds.
Stage 3 of global collapse: Building beings to decelerate until collapse conclusion, over 1.4 seconds.
SIMPLE analysis shows WTC7 was in free fall for half the global collapse.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 I quote AGAIN: ""In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s""
Where exactly are you missing ACCELERATION of GRAVITY and FREE FALL in NIST's own report, and that rate and speed are graphed in figure 3-15?
Why are you lying?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 NIST did try to back up YOUR erroneous beliefs, however, with their 3D models. Which is interesting, because an 8-year-old can see their models bear no resemblance to the actual collapse. Again, why believe a nutbag troofer, eh? Go look, smartass. You pick any one of their models, and tell me ANY of them look like the collapse we can all see with our own eyes from any number of angles.
Smug ignorance is not a virtue. Wake up.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
Sorry it's so FACTY and stuff, when you just quoted a CONCLUSION, instead of the data. The conclusion isn't supported by their own MEASURABLE, OBSERVABLE and PUBLISHED data. It's just the shortcut lie
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 STFU and read the quote, bro. They're not HIDING the data, they're trying to obfuscate it. Get an adult to help you with the big words. You're not arguing the facts here. You're ignoring them.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 Gotcha in a distortion., quote-mining instead of using the facts.
Research figure 3-15. "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s"
Your 40% figure is derived by AVERAGING the rates, and is clear evidence of trying to hide the actual data.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore NIST DOES in fact, record publicly the following things:
Second zero: Collapse initiates.
Seconds 0-1.75: Building suddenly accelerates, achieving acceleration of gravity in less than two seconds.
Seconds: 1.75-4.0: Building is in free fall.
Seconds 4.0-5.4: Building decelerates, collapse concludes.
Simple math, bro, for over HALF of the fall, it's in free fall. For another third, it's ACHIEVING free fall.
THEN it slows down. Averaging the overall collapse time was a TRICK.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 And when it comes right down to it, NIST's final report was released in Nov-Dec of '08, and the fact has been there for two years. FOX is two years behind in just WAFFLINGLY acknowledging what they could cover in ten seconds:
NIST ADMITS ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY AND FREE FALL IN BUILDING 7.
The fact that you STILL don't know that and that it hasn't been covered on ANY MAJOR NETWORK is -exactly- why your entire case is just blather. FOX is coming around.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 Now you're reversing, and shilling. Where is it written that the TV news is the arbiter of fact? I'd LOVE to see them cover what EXACTLY is said in the official report on WTC7, and they STILL didn't. It's simple.
NIST, the National Institute of Science and Technology, has clearly admitted free fall in WTC7. This isn't controversial.
The idiotic claims are yours. READ THE REPORT.
And then step up like you're debunking. All you're doing is shilling a lie.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
So, here's Bill's answer, right on FOX news:
November 13, 2010
r2RI4N5zmWU
So, either we're now to assume FOX isn't legitimate, or the major media is waking up.
Rosie said it as well, on The View before her firing. I do equate The View with about as much journalistic integrity as Bill's shows, by the way.
NIST admits free fall in WTC7, which the AE911truth engineers have been talking about since 2003. NIST's report and the tech briefing weren't on major news, because they waffled and stammered
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 YES THERE IS. Bill O is stating an opinion. Whoopee. However, you're mistaken about your assessment of major media. Or you're saying FOX isn't genuine. Earlier this year, Geraldo covered WTC7's collapse from a much more open-minded stance, as the mystery that won't go away.
But let me understand you: A fact is only a fact if a major TV news show stands behind it as a fact?
Know what's backwards? Anyone who DID, you'd simply say wasn't genuine. Circular reasoning isn't REASONING.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@thx291 I'll explain what it means to you, a debumpkin goon. You spend where you place importance. Your ridiculous argument that Clinton getting a blow job merited $40 million in expense (considering the slam dunk $500 cost of of DNA test) somehow exculpates any consideration of governmental involvement displays no critical thinking.
Millions of witnesses to...?
Osama? Caves? The actual highjackings? Or just the collisions themselves?
All things we're expected to believe.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Bill is disgusting. He uses the weakest argument,"your a nut". He doesnt even have an argument. He only trys to discredit the sayer. This is the problem with our society. We let folks gain power by peer acceptance. So when the mass population gets sick all hail the evil chiefs. Bill's answer is " you think were bad"? "were the good guys". What a simpleton.As if killing others in Iraq would be a good solution to our woes anyway. My goodness Bill, reality is on its way.
Omegatide 1 year ago
Bill O'Reilly makes me want to punch Bill O'Reilly in the face.
ricerice566 1 year ago
O'Reilly uses alot of Strawmans ! God!
pcbb01 1 year ago
@uranorexic You know less about the law than my 8-year-old.
Let me air this for all to hear:
uranorexic is going to get the former President and Vice President to sue me for libel in open court. Y'know, because he's an attorney with connections.
Anyone here believe THAT lie?
I answered your questions, you ducked mine. I love how often you deny it, when it's gone on for four pages.
Why didn't anyone prosecute them? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BALLS.
Answered it again.
Your turn.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic He's doing it ON THE AIR. This would be, according to anyone credible, AIRING it.
I notice you say denigrating. You're right. He's just calling them names and slandering them. He's not debunking them in ANY WAY.
Much like you, when you're factless. You call names. Imagine my deep pain at being called names by a clueless trailer denizen.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Let me see if I understand Bill's reasoning:
Fetzer can't get any legitimate news organization anywhere in the world to air his views. And yet......he's on FOX.
So....let's follow the logic. Either FOX isn't a legitimate news organization, or...Bill was just wrong, since he's sitting there 'interviewing' Fetzer.
Am I the only one who can spot the double-talk, double-think backwards-ass approach to reality here?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Offer EVIDENCE of your claim, 'attorney'. Shouldn't you be at work at the 'law office'? Don't just call it 'bogus'. PROVE IT.
Document it. Aren't you all about 'evidence', 'attorney-man'?
I answered your question specifically. You didn't answer mine with some sort of 'counter-fact'. You lose, you lose, and that's what makes a loser.
I'm just babysitting you, you realize. I'm the most attention you get anywhere. It's my part of the charity work I do for the mentally unstable.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Bill's a cunt.
Bush IS a murderer.
You're seeing Goebbel's German propaganda machine in operation. If you BELIEVE Bill O'Reilly, you're one step from goose-step.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Again, you duck the obvious. Time to answer my question, or realize WHY everyone knows you're an intellectual coward.
Why spend $40 million impeaching Clinton, and only $3 million investigating 4 separate plane crashes that caused billions in damage and killed 3000 people, and is STILL killing people to this very day?
I ask again, and you have no answer...WHY?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic I have answered. You make a fool of yourself. How much 'balls' does it take to drag a president into court over marital infidelity? NONE. And to spend $40 million to do it while only spending $3million to investigate the largest crime in American history shows how LITTLE balls they have.
I have answered you, and you lost. You keep asking the same things, over and over, ignoring the answers obvious to an adult.
You fear MY challenges and questions, and your attacks have no impact.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore You're a liar. You're a fascist. You're a moron. You're illiterate. You're a coward. You're a poser. You're uneducated. You're afraid. You're obnoxious. You're unintelligent. You're naive. You're mentally unstable. You're poor, weak, slow, and fat.
You never served in the military. You never graduated college.
You know nothing, say nothing, do nothing.
I'm the best thing that ever happened to you.
DISMISSED and PWNED.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic >yawn<
You're boring.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic I'm an actual American patriot, not a little posing Nazi, like yourself.
See, you're what's wrong with this country. You use the word traitor without having the slightest idea what it means.
I'll stay right here, and kick the living DOGSHIT out of trailer-trash lying scum like yourself who think that the stupidest people should decide who gets to speak.
Because seriously, you need the shit kicked out of you.
I say that with great love, knowing it would do you some good.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Bill can't disgrace any of the armed services, because he never bothered to serve.
What a coward. Like most of the deniers.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You really are simple. Explain this to me:
Why did the government spend $40 million to impeach Clinton, and only $3 million to fund the 9/11 Commission?
REALLY REALLY think about that.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You're not an attorney, unless you're taking time out from chasing ambulances to post for hours on YouTube.
Why didn't they go after Bush? Because the actual power in this country does NOT FLOW FROM CONGRESS. If you think Democrat/Republican means a damned thing, you're a bigger fool than you sound, which is HUGE.
The power in this country does NOT flow from elected officials, and the Senate needs to get re-elected. They're cowards, pure and simple.
Like yourself. No balls.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Wrong. Nothing lower than a liar, especially one who lies to cover up murder.
You're a liar, and you're complicit in these murders.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uranorexic Untrue. You didn't read it. And you know it. Now you know I know it.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uranorexic Okay, little liar. Know what you're ducking out on?
MY DIRECT ACCUSATION ON YOUTUBE THAT YOU ARE A LIAR, AND YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY.
You had to lie, in order to pretend you have things you lack:
1. A college education. You lack.
2. An actual profession. You lack.
3. Mental stability. You lack.
4. Ability to think or reason or research. You lack.
Know what you're about to lack? My attention being paid to your childish ranting.
Center-of-attention deficit disorder much?
Pussy.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Keep asking, I keep answering. CHENEY IN THE BUNKER. Read Minuta's testimony.
Don't just put your chubby little fingers in your ears. READ THE TESTIMONY.
You keep ducking the EVIDENCE of people TESTIFYING before Congress.
Are the words too big?
You seem to have trouble spelling the small ones. I'm sorry for your mental challenges. You're very unstable.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic I supplied the sources to evidence. You fear to read them.
It's okay. You're safey-wafey in your little trailer.
Actually, the buildings falling too fast is DIRECT SCIENTIFIC evidence, and only YOU would deny that as evidence of simultaneous column failure. Even NIST had earlier said that if there was freefall, their theory would fall.
Then they admitted freefall, and ignored its implications. FACT.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Oh, let me translate your drivel:
"I don't want to read specific EVIDENCE given to the Senate investigative commission, because that's just people talking."
Able Danger was tracking and WARNING about 6 of the highjackers a year in advance, and tried to WARN Ashcroft. They were ignored. When they blew the whistle, they were punished.
Fuck sake, you're afraid to read?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You haven't made 10 grand in your life, and you haven't earned it here.
Sibel Edmonds....stop slobbering. Look it up.
Generic? She named names. Whacko? She's a triple-degree trilinguist working for FBI linguistics analysts who openly testified that her translations were being systematically altered or misinterpreted to cover up for advanced knowledge. PERIOD.
But since you're really just here to call names and suck Bill's dick, I know you won't bother to read. Reading is hard. Waa!
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Look it up. You claim to hold the facts, go hold them in your own hands.
You're blaming Reno for Ashcroft's actions, and the DI's actions? Oh. My. God.
You're a lunatic.
Let's see...."Osama Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" report and lots of pictures of Bush holding it in his hands. Evidence.
You really start to spell poorly and curse more when you're wrong.
Calm down, pay your trailer rent, and have a beer.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Know what? I'm not SAYING they're doing nothing about it. I'm saying that what they're CLEARLY doing is covering it up.
Nixon resigned. Get your facts straight.
So, let me see if I understand more of your blather:
Notice what they DIDN'T impeach Nixon for: His presence at a meeting with LBJ in Dallas the night before JFK was shot.
Are you suggesting Henry Gonzales would indict Bush? Or the current AG would stir this pot with so many unelected participants still holding power?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic No, but it contradicts your point, perfectly.
I'm sorry, but I seem to be making you very hypertensive. Your mouth, which sounds like after-hours in a trailer park, goes into high gear, saying nothing, ripping out junior high level insults, and my guess is, you think you're doing anything but pulling down your pants to boast your shortcomings.
Go beat your wife, I'm sure she's late with your meds.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Hey, pussy.
Yes, pussy.
Stop asking ME. READ AND WATCH FOR YOURSELF.
Bill O'Reilly won't have it on his 'news' show. You have an obligation now, and you're just running. READ THEIR TESTIMONY.
Or get an adult to read it to you. There aren't any pictures, and there won't be a FEMA coloring book on it.
Hide your disappointment.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Oh, for fuck sake, you're a bullshit liar. You know it. I know it.
YOU CLAIMED TO BE A LAWYER WHEN WE BOTH KNOW YOU'RE NOT.
YOU 'THREATENED' TO TURN ME IN TO THE AUTHORITIES SO I COULD BE CIVILLY PROSECUTED FOR LIBEL.
Nuff said. You're a chickenshit poser.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Because I have fun watching the REAL whackos. The hate-mongering, fear-spewing, fact-hiding, fact-altering, fact-avoiding puppets at FOX news.
You know...your heroes.
When your IQ hits triple digits, you'll see Bill for exactly what he is.
Maybe. You seem to be pretty much in love with rabid entertainers posing as journalists.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic AGAIN, micro-mind, Cheney was testified against for his part in the bunker.
Ashcroft was implicated in the testimony of Able Danger.
The CIA was clearly implicated at putting those terrorists in America by Springmann, and if you think that "W" wasn't aware clearly that they were HERE, and plotting an attack, then there's no hope for you. You like Bill O'Reilly, and you want someone who doesn't think, to think for you.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Absolutely, they did. But here's you, all over the place, spraying your froth...and this is OBVIOUS...without even ONCE reading up on the sources.
Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer had his classified clearance revoked, Sibel Edmonds was fired and threatened with death, J. Michael Springmann was transferred and threatened.
For fuck sake, if you're not just some slobbering moron, READ THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTS about their testimony. THEN you can talk.
Until then, you're just talking.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic No, simpleton, but you're like arguing with molten shit.
You don't NEEEEEEEEEED everyone covering it up. Not everyone IS, as I clearly proved. You just need to get a stranglehold on the key positions in government, which they have, child. WAKE UP.
I answered your questions and juvenile insults repeatedly. I truly do respect your absolute right to be wrong, obnoxious, ignorant, naive and and impotent liar.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Admit it Bill, Jim put you in your place . Why is FOX people seem to be in dream land? Notice Bill has no proof of what he says in this interview. Bill brings a guest on and becomes one sided. Are the Bill O'Reilly suppose to think he is great??
lawnpower0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uranorexic Prejudice much? Look m8, you are not an american, you are a human being. Say it with me, say it: "I am a human being!" Yeah, you can do it!
Oh, I see you are an attorney (why do you put your profession in capital?) aswell. Hmm, that explains your lack of common sense, because we all know by now that the legal system is not about justice at all, it's about control, and the people promoting that corrupt system are ten times as crazy as those crazy conspiracy fucks, yeah!
nielss4 1 year ago
@uranorexic I've already stated my evidence, and you keep running from it.
1. Sibel Edmonds.
2. Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer and Able Danger
3. J. Michael Springmann.
Know why you don't respond to those?
I do. You, like Shrill Bill the Shill, can't handle facts, and just call names when someone clearly stomps your lying ass.
You claimed to be an attorney. You lied. You lose.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You already have a fool retard educating yourself. You.
Care to list how many former lobbyists ARE in the administration? I can. Care to guess how many got lobbyist jobs after they left? One and the same, kiddo.
Your straw-man arguments have no weight.
'We all'? Are you still hearing voices?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic I'm saying, and you're losing, that I could -start- there.
Goes to motive, your honor.
Sustained.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You're a lying buffoon. Lawyer. My ass.
But hey, good luck. I'm sure Governor Bush is just waiting for someone like you to give me my day in court. I've listed TONS of evidence to implicate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the administration.
By the way, when you DO come through with your summons, your name will be on it, yes? Of course. We'll review this little convo as part of the evidence.
I think it'll be interesting to see if you've done a little libeling here, eh?
Epic fail. Liar.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
It's a damn good thing that disgusting piece of shit isn't a TV personality in Australia..we don't play that shit over here. What the fuck is wrong with you America!? You fuck heads actually watch that shit!? For shame!! Fuck you Bill. If I see you in the street I'm going to kick your nuts into your fucking mouth.
Dicker358 1 year ago
@uranorexic I have addressed it, you idiot. Arrested? Who's going to do it? The Attorney General?
Fucking read, which you just don't do.
By the way, I just realized you actually believe it matters which party is in power, as if there's a big difference between being a Repugnican or Democrap. Lobbyists buy BOTH sides, because that's their job.
HA! Like you have any traction with the former administration. They're LAUGHING at you, because you BELIEVED them.
Turn me in. Lots of people say it.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Libeled? You're a complete idiot. You state how they DIDN'T order the EPA to declare the post-attack air SAFE, when they knew it was a toxic cocktail CERTAIN to kill people. This isn't disputed by anyone credible.
It was done to re-open Wall Street, showing AGAIN that money was more important than civilians trying to save lives.
The Bush-Cheney administration at the very LEAST was guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter.
This isn't disputed by anyone credible.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic FACTS and things you refuse to address:
1. Sibel Edmonds testimony.
2. Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer's testimony.
3. J. Michael Springmann's testimony.
4. NIST's acknowledgment of 2.4 seconds of freefall in WTC7.
5. 9/11 Commission dissenters who said information was withheld from them.
6. Cheney's presence and actions in the bunker.
7. 9 highjackers...alive.
By the way, it's PROPOSITION, not preposition. Don't use big words.
No one will ever be charged. So no crime was committed..right?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Wait, now you're saying that NIST said WTC7 was blown up by an airplane? Good God. READ SOMETHING.
NIST admits to 2.4 seconds of symmetrical freefall. They don't HAVE to admit explosives. There is not one fire-borne cause that could produce that effect. They know it. YOU should know it.
You'll be waiting until doomsday to get the clue you lack, and even then, you'll put your fingers in your mismatched ears, and go lalalalala.
What an idiot you are in your little monkey outfit.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Yes, you're lecturing, retard, but I'm no Einstein. And you certainly aren't.
You know why it's STANDARD to mention operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin incident, and what happened in other TYPICAL false flag operations?
Because it's standard debumpkin rhetoric to say the government wouldn't DO such a thing. Wouldn't kill US civilians, or plan hijackings, etc.
When they clearly HAVE.
You're not debating. You're just taking an obtuse position. You lose.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You realize of course you're the only one whom you're talking to, right? You don't have an audience.
Okay, quick lesson for Captain Stupid:
1. The US Attorney General would have to charge them. With me so far, idiot?
2. The US Attorney General, appointed by Bush, Henry Gonzales. Know -anything- about him? Like...how long he worked for Bush? Why he couldn't be fired, but HAD to resign? I know it's a lot at once, take a breath.
3. What would happen if someone DID get charged? Any IDEA
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Yo, slow-coach. Do you think we just BOUGHT them one day and dropped them? Has it ever popped up in your vast reading how LONG it took to develop them in complete secret?
Of course not. You're a buffoon.
I've answered your questions SPECIFICALLY.
You're wrong about someone being tried for it, you refuse to look up Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer, Sibel Edmonds, J. Michael Springmann, or ANYONE who's blown the whistle.
You and Bill O will be the last to know.
Charges? Are you joking?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Wait, wait..you're ACTUALLY saying the government doesn't commit crimes, much less MONUMENTAL ONES?
Are you REALLY this naive? You can't walk around this blind, chump.
You think this is the first time we've staged a false flag operation? Do you actually believe that? Or are you actually uninformed enough to believe we NEVER have, and NEVER would? Is that your whole case?
You've already lost. Sorry, that's just -history-.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You talk a lot, and you have yet to say a thing.
The Manhattan Project is CLEAR proof that tens of thousands of people can keep a secret for over a decade. PROOF that it HAS happened.
The thing you and the debumpkins keep trying to miss is that this ISN'T as big a secret as you keep claiming. Able Danger exposed 6 of these guys a year ahead of 9/11, and got GAGGED by the Pentagon.
Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer. Look it up and shut the fuck up, moron.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Actually, someone HAS been arrested, tried, and sentenced. Where the fuck have you been?
You overuse the word 'fool' and anyone can figure out why. You've been hurt by the word, and anyone can figure out THAT, too. I guess if enough people call you a fool, rather than REALIZE you're a fool, you just start using the word like you have a clue.
You don't, and you know it. That's why you insult instead of citing sources.
Asked, and you ran from the challenge. Coward.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
You do realize there's been one trial already, right?
Are you really this uninformed? Massasoui ring any bells?
Are you really saying there was no CRIME committed on 9/11?
Who the fuck is the fool saying that?? YOU??
Stupidest remark EVER.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic That's just a full of shit statement, and since you don't bother to document, you're just shrieking. Calm down, simpleton. Grab a source, and post it.
Otherwise, you're just the loud kid in the theater who gets bitch-slapped.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Okay, stupid...here's the problem. NIST is the one saying 2.4 seconds of freefall. Follow it so far? So you go right on and show me where Sci-Amer says otherwise, okay? I'd -love- to see it.
I can read. I can read an official report and see the tacit admission of demolition with my own eyes, as could you, if you were doing anything more than ranting.
Here's my 9/11 theory, now you just go prove me wrong:
WTC7 experienced 2.4 seconds of symmetrical freefall. FACT.
Disprove it.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic All you're saying is you don't know a thing. READ the NIST report, simpleton. Who cares what you 'allow'? You're a nobody on YouTube.
NIST has no explanation for the 2.4 seconds of acceleration of gravity, but they were very clear that it occurred. Do you need an adult to read it to you?
You don't get to call anyone a dumbass without the irony invoking chuckles.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic So, basically, Scientific American called NIST's Final Report on WTC7 a lie? Here's a fact, clueless.
2.4 seconds of absolutely acknowledged unrefuted acceleration of gravity.
Now, you just whip out your source. Scientific American? I'll be requiring the date, author, issue number and article title from you. FACTS, remember?
You WILL show me where they dispute 2.4 seconds of ACKNOWLEDGED freefall of WTC7, and offer ANY explanation for simultaneous column collapse. Get busy, bitch.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic The New York Times covered Able Danger. The SF Chronicle has an ongoing coverage of Sibel Edmonds' case. Where have YOU been? You don't READ the major media, illiterate dipstick.
Vanity Fair covered J. Michael Springmann, and so did all THREE networks.
Bill isn't doing JOURNALISM, I agree, and thanks for admitting it.
You just rant. I'm self-employed, and I talk to people almost daily about 9/11 and the bullshit 'official story'. Most people have eyes and ears. You speak for YOU.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic A final impression of you:
"Me read big article with words and things and me am sure of facts...except name of magazine or article, or facts. You am loon, me am mighty internet warrior."
Take a breath, and take a pill, kid. DEEEEP breath, your hysteria will pass.
Then read some major newspapers covering MANY of the aspects of the cover-up.
But to address your point: The Manhattan Project went secret for 11 years, employed TENS OF THOUSANDS of people. Voila. It's been DONE.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You're a ranting idiot.
Read back, simpleton, or get an adult to do it for you. He answered it, I answered it. You ignored it. Typical debumpkin response.
You make it sound like this hasn't been covered, and it has.
The major media is owned by such companies as General Electric, with MASSIVE defense contracts, period.
Look into the REASONS for things, and stop deluding yourself that you make any traction with thinkers.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic Because they are all owned by Zionist Jews.. stop running your mouth until you know what you are talking about...
MrMichaelinmex 1 year ago
@uranorexic But let's come back to EARTH, shall we?
General Electric, they own a media. Does GE have any defense contracts?
Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX....any ties to the defense industry?
I realize you, Bill, and ALL the network news pundits are all about ignoring the truth, but that's only because the REAL dumbfucks are the Bills of the world.
Bill won't LISTEN to the guy. He's AFRAID of the facts, and his only 'rebuttals' are to call names, point to media sleep, and act like an assclown.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic You don't get to call names, non-reader. Did the NY Times cover Able Danger?
Did it cover the FBI involvement in the 93WTC bombing? Are you saying this right here on a video where a major media is 'covering' it? They may not agree with it, or even dare to argue the FACTS, instead of just calling names, but Bill's COVERING it.
Did major media cover Sibel Edmonds?
You have no idea, do you? READ
Quoting "Animal House" Dean Wermer like it's your own is a new degree of pathetic. You lose.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
so o'reilly's basis of argument against fetzer's claim is that fetzer is a nut???
wow... that's it billo.. you're argument is overwhelming... there's no way all of fetzer's facts and data can prove you wrong, because.... you claim he's an america-hating nut...
that's it.. case closed...
smh.... what a joke...
elnegrobembon 1 year ago
Just some FACTS to dispute Bill's point about 'no one has come forward'.
Billy, have you ever heard the names Sibel Edmonds, Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer (of Able Danger), J. Michael Springmann, or the Whistleblowers?
Are these people a 'disgrace'? OF COURSE you'd say so, because what they say upsets your little applecart of being a chickenhawk and sexual predator.
But let's be honest. The government FEARS what these people have to say, Billy, and by osmosis, so do you.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@uranorexic I'm going to translate your babble:
"Bill said it, it's true."
Wipe his sperm off your mouth. Watch again. Fetzer DID answer the question, and Bill talked over him. I'm -certain- you have no idea who Carl Bernstein is, or you'd realize the IMPACT of Bill's answer.
FACT:
Carl Bernstein is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who blew the lid off of Watergate in the 70s, and makes a clear case for CIA infiltration and manipulation of the major media.
Fetzer answered. Bill choked.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Anyone notice Bill's opinion has nothing to do with the facts? Call it crazy, and move on. "The media hasn't covered it, so it isn't true."
Bill's Goebbels script is verbatim:
-Call dissenters traitors and nuts.
-Avoid the facts.
And I love what Fetzer says about Bill the Chickenhawk.
Watching O'Reilly makes me want to puke.
Did he just imply FOX news was a 'legitimate' organization?
Bill's a disgrace to genuine journalism.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
i hope he is fired ?
ZakeAPB 1 year ago
Bill, your Mother is rolling in her grave over what you have become.
DNFmcX 1 year ago
Whenever he can't go toe-to-toe with someone intellectually, he says they hate America. To say that reasoned judgement is hateful to America is kinda like saying ignorance loves America.
robsmithsongs 1 year ago
DAMN O REILY SON'S THIS DUDE. ITS LIKE WATCHING A BULLY AGAINST A FAT KID ON THE PLAYGROUND
MOXWELLDIAMOND 1 year ago
on the front page of the NY TIMES WOW THAT IS WORSE THAN GODFATHER III "O REiLLY IS ONE OF THEM CAN"T BELIEVE YOU CAUSE YOUR ONE OF THEM>>>>> don't believe this guy unless you like wiping wounds on your ass
up2space 1 year ago
It was actually a Mossad job which was allowed to happen by zionists within the American government.
kromed01 1 year ago
@kromed01 NWO
DNFmcX 1 year ago
I like how Bill says "thousands would have to buy into it"
There are tens and millions of people who believe it Bill and you know it you NWO corporate owned tool!
rmccay88 1 year ago 2
@uranorexic no elvis is dead. i never ever ever said bush killed those people. you assumed that. i say it is branches of a government that either knew about it before hand or planned it. i never said it was bush himself personally murdering those people. sanctions in our government orchestrated the attacks or had knowledge of them before hand but did nothign to prevent it.
TMarche 1 year ago
@uranorexic this is completely false. why do you believe this fallacy? as for elvis for being alive..thats absurd.
TMarche 1 year ago
@uranorexic someone needs to smoke some herb and chill. commie? traitor? mhmm I believe in the Constitution so ill stay right where i am.
TMarche 1 year ago
@uranorexic ill give you an answer to your question when you answer mine.
how many buildings collapsed on 9-11?
TMarche 1 year ago
Bill= brainwasher
Baphamatt 1 year ago
@uranorexic dude i explained it earlier to you. the CIA own all media outlets which is why they wont cover it. and even if they do they wont go into enough detail about it. there is a video from BBC that shows live footage on the day of "the attacks" and a woman or man explaining that WTC Building 7 had just "collapsed" but you can clearly see in the background WTC 7 Builing standing and stable. they had predicted it falling about 22 minutes or so before it even happened.
TMarche 1 year ago
@uranorexic hahahahhahahahhahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhaha
TMarche 1 year ago
@uranorexic hahahahhahahahahahah alright man im not gonna debate with you anymore its pointless. believe whatever you want man.
TMarche 1 year ago