RE: There was a plane!

RE: There was a plane! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 7:28:35 PM)
and I have explained this many times, and proven that your explanation is bullshit. Well unless you want to continue to butcher grammar. take note of the conjunction there is your first clue! LOL

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 7:38:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy he collects the insurance money double. the guy is a fraud- and said fraud gets paid by whom? PA the stuff about Silverstein is grossly exaggerated. The Port Authority owns the site. He does not. He leased it and continues to pay 10+ million a month regardless of anything on the site. There have been great delays which is a big deal when paying 120 million a year in rent. He is liable to rebuild and the insurence hasn't covered the costs because he insured the buildings for too little so this hardly represents a great windfall for him http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html quote: 7 was imploded. PA if WTC 7 imploded it wouldn't have done a massive amount of damage to the buildings around it like the Verzon which was far tougher than WTC 7 and yet millions in damage was caused. .

pahunkboy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 7:49:52 PM)
and it was reported on live tv that 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did collapse. Sure sounds like someone pulled it. the news even had 7 in the live background when they reported that it had collapsed! silverstien made a ton of money off the insurance. YES.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 8:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy and it was reported on live tv that 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did collapse. Sure sounds like someone pulled it. That stuff about the BBC reporting it early isn't a big deal because the news channels were reporting it was due to fall after the fire men were pulled away at around 3.30 PM because they suspected it would fall. It was about 5 PM when she said it. The news caster talking around the time it fell, in the famous clip that is often used, was saying it was due to fall or had fallen. There was a lot of confusion that day and the idea people in all the media outlets were given scripts to read from is absurd. quote: the news even had 7 in the live background when they reported that it had collapsed! Does that not point to a stupid mistake on a live news show where all sorts of errors often happen? quote: silverstien made a ton of money off the insurance. YES. The figures aren't fully available but judging by what is known he will be lucky indeed to break even. The claim he made to seek double payment was successful for a few of the parties, and still doesn't mean he will break even as he substantially under insured the buildings.

pahunkboy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 8:07:37 PM)
I know what I seen. 7 is a total SCAM. You do not report a 47 story building fell on live TV when said building is right there in the picture. I dont know what you need to see- 7 is the key to the whole event. Then 9 of 12 911 commissioners renigged on the report. That is astounding! Factor in 28 pages that are blacked out. It is ALL A SCAM.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 8:07:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne LOL gawd damnit that time I did have a mouth full. I am going to have to make sure I do nt have any food or drink in my mouth from now on when I read these posts LOL Ok so the columns were on the outside of the buyilding, well you are wrong they are in the inside fucking DUH! Fuck you people make any shit up regardless how foolish it makes you all look! R0 this is about as stupid as it can get with you. I know the columns were on the inside of the building. The lines illustrate where they would be internally if they weren't destroyed. Well then lets see it! All that anyone can see is smoke! You may as well have drawn lines on jessicas ass and told us that there were supposed to be columns there. Any asshole can see there is nothing usable in that picture! well except what someones imagination can fantasize. I want evidence, assessment not fucking fantasies, that and if you knew how they building was laid out inside you would have a red face posting such shit in the first place because who ever drew those lines dont know shit about it either. There was no fraud that you have proven or even pointed out. The video that was broadcast live of the fall is widely available. It took roughly 16 seconds to fall. Correctly stated there was no fraud that you are willing to accept as such. All that your ilk has succedded in doing is showing everyone how you all dance around and eat shit with a smile. Where the fuck is that video that you said showed 16 seconds fall time. as usual not a damn thing. fall time is time in motion. I have no idea what loony toon method these people are trying use to pretend GLOBAL FAILURE DID NOT OCCUR. The graph only showed the descent from seconds one to five. This has got so fucking ridiculous with R0 that he is now presenting a graph as actual proof of how long WTC 7 took to fall. Wheres yours? You dont have one! The point is GLOBAL FAILURE FREEFALL admitted by the gubafia. This shit is ridiculous with you, you provide not one damn thing to support your claims, fuzzy pictures that you cant even see the buildings why bother even posting. Yeh proof of freefall. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/wtc7freefall002-1.jpg[/image] The only video of the collapse shows that it took 16 seconds to collapse when it should have been under seven in free-fall. really? post it. WAITING Here is the famous video that conspiracists artfully edited to remove the collapse of the east penthouse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ which proves the collapse took a bare minimum of thirteen seconds, with estimates that after it was no longer it view it took about 16 seconds t completely fall. . Once again collapse time is the time it takes for it to fall to the ground. Like every other citation you posted your video shows NOTHING! It does not show a visible collapse that can be followed to the ground therefore no one in their right mind has any reason to believe that it did and like everything the mafia does its just a fucking GUESS and a presumption to make the story sound good. and that side of the building is OPPOSITE the the fucking damage so what the fuck is up with that! <- thats a statement not a question! EVIDENCE! AGAIN it changes nothing regarding the FACT that NIST admitted a freefall and freefall can only be accomplished by demolition. R0 you are really showing your ignorance. Other buildings like WTC 3 collapsed, 4 and 6 did partly collapse and were destroyed beyond repair, WTC 5 partially collapsed also. Other nearby buildings were destroyed as well. No they didnt the missing portions were either blown out or they were pounded into the ground by falling debris. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/gzd_059a.jpg[/image] R0 we must be talking at cross purposes here. All you are doing is asserting that global failure happened in WTC 7 and not elsewhere. They were considerably smaller buildings. They didn't constitute skyscrapers so they would be a good deal less vulnerable as their structures did not bear loads remotely as heavy. and none of them GLOBALLY COLLAPSED! lol Now you prove you do not knwo the difference between a collapse and being pounded into the ground by debris. That and its really fucking uneducated to imply that because something holds heavier loads it is somehow less able to do so than one designed to hold lighter loads. You are really beginning to bore me.. The point was that debris from WTC 1 and 2 caused immense damage, essentially destroying all the other WTC buildings, some of which partially collapsed. and that has nothing to do with the admission of freefall and global failure that a demolition causes. You people do more to incriminate the official "story" than keep it afloat with your ridiculous ploys obfuscations and red herrings.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 8:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The news caster talking around the time it fell, in the famous clip that is often used, was saying it was due to fall or had fallen. then you agree that it was planned demolition after all.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 9:18:01 PM)
I'm beginning to think you can't even use the quoting system on this forum - looks like a telling sign of an individual's intellignece. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne LOL gawd damnit that time I did have a mouth full. I am going to have to make sure I do nt have any food or drink in my mouth from now on when I read these posts LOL Ok so the columns were on the outside of the buyilding, well you are wrong they are in the inside fucking DUH! Fuck you people make any shit up regardless how foolish it makes you all look! R0 this is about as stupid as it can get with you. I know the columns were on the inside of the building. The lines illustrate where they would be internally if they weren't destroyed. Well then lets see it! All that anyone can see is smoke! Get your eyes tested. Most people could see a lot of damage. All the fucking smoke was caused by serious fires which asswipes pretend were only minor. quote: You may as well have drawn lines on jessicas ass and told us that there were supposed to be columns there. Any asshole can see there is nothing usable in that picture! well except what someones imagination can fantasize. I want evidence, assessment not fucking fantasies, that and if you knew how they building was laid out inside you would have a red face posting such shit in the first place because who ever drew those lines dont know shit about it either. It is indeed comical for the person on here giving out about fantasies to be R0! If you bothered to look back at the site you would see that the lines actually conform to the plan which is just above the image in question http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm quote: There was no fraud that you have proven or even pointed out. The video that was broadcast live of the fall is widely available. It took roughly 16 seconds to fall. Correctly stated there was no fraud that you are willing to accept as such. All that your ilk has succedded in doing is showing everyone how you all dance around and eat shit with a smile. Where the fuck is that video that you said showed 16 seconds fall time. as usual not a damn thing. This is a fucking classic. You posted a reply to the video in a different part of the post.It shows how dishonest you are. The video is the very footage posted on loads of conspiracy sites. It demonstrates how disingenuous R0 is, how willing he is to lie in order to win this argument. Its pathetic behaviour. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ which proves the collapse took a bare minimum of thirteen seconds, with estimates that after it was no longer it view it took about 16 seconds to completely fall. quote: fall time is time in motion. I have no idea what loony toon method these people are trying use to pretend GLOBAL FAILURE DID NOT OCCUR. The graph only showed the descent from seconds one to five. This has got so fucking ridiculous with R0 that he is now presenting a graph as actual proof of how long WTC 7 took to fall. Wheres yours? You dont have one! I don't need a graph, there is video which is far more convincing then lines drawn on a piece of paper! [:D] If you want graphs just look up the NIST website. quote: The point is GLOBAL FAILURE FREEFALL admitted by the gubafia. Jesus Christ, I already proved they acknowledged that but it didn't change the substance of what they presented and the building was only in free-fall for a fraction of the time it was descending. I'll be happy to remind you of that inconvenient fact for a long time to come... quote: This shit is ridiculous with you, you provide not one damn thing to support your claims, fuzzy pictures that you cant even see the buildings why bother even posting. Obviously you just want to jizz your Alex Jones conspiracy bullshit all over the forum. Well, here is a newsflash. Others won't shut up to suit your needs. quote: Yeh proof of freefall. The only video of the collapse shows that it took 16 seconds to collapse when it should have been under seven in free-fall. really? post it. WAITING Here is the famous video that conspiracists artfully edited to remove the collapse of the east penthouse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ which proves the collapse took a bare minimum of thirteen seconds, with estimates that after it was no longer it view it took about 16 seconds t completely fall. . Once again collapse time is the time it takes for it to fall to the ground. Like every other citation you posted your video shows NOTHING! It does not show a collapse and it anyone GUESS what happened. The video shows the fucking collapse of the tower. The collapse is when the building starts to collapse. It did so when the penthouse fell into the top of the building due to the roof supports giving way. It was an integral part of the collapse. quote: It does not show a visible collapse that can be followed to the ground therefore no one in their right mind has any reason to believe that it did and like everything the mafia does its just a fucking GUESS and a presumption to make the story sound good. and that side of the building is OPPOSITE the the fucking damage so what the fuck is up with that! <- thats a statement not a question! This is the fucking video that Chandler also uses dumbo, along with loads of other conspiracists. It matters not a jot which face of the building the camera is looking at, the point is that it shows the fucking collapse. This is the video that allows estimation of the fall of the building which is perfectly possible as most of the fall was visible. quote: AGAIN it changes nothing regarding the FACT that NIST admitted a freefall and freefall can only be accomplished by demolition. Bullshit, they only acknowledged free-fall happened for a small fraction of the building's descent. It was much slower overall, over twice as slow necessary for free-fall. quote: R0 you are really showing your ignorance. Other buildings like WTC 3 collapsed, 4 and 6 did partly collapse and were destroyed beyond repair, WTC 5 partially collapsed also. Other nearby buildings were destroyed as well. No they didnt the missing portions were either blown out or they were pounded into the ground by falling debris. Some the the buildings partially collapsed due to the debris. That was my point. Debris caused massive damage elsewhere yet conspiracists claim it didn't wit WTC 7. quote: R0 we must be talking at cross purposes here. All you are doing is asserting that global failure happened in WTC 7 and not elsewhere. They were considerably smaller buildings. They didn't constitute skyscrapers so they would be a good deal less vulnerable as their structures did not bear loads remotely as heavy. Now you prove you do not knwo the difference between a collapse and being pounded into the ground by debris. No it merely illustrates your inability to actually read properly. Debris damaged WTC 7 too but that was not the point. The point was that was smaller buildings carrying lesser loads they were less likely to suffer a catastrophic collapse regardless of conditions. quote: That and its really fucking uneducated to imply that because something holds heavier loads it is somehow less able to do so than one designed to hold lighter loads. You are really beginning to bore me.. Ducky, you never interested me in the first place. I didn't say that a building hilding heavier loads is less able to do so than a building designed to hold lighter loads. The point was that one was a 47 story tower, the others were 5 or 6 stories. With all else being equal, a 47 story tower is more likely to suffer from a catastrophic collapse if the infrastructure bearing the load is compromised because it is harder for the rest of the structure to redistribute the load because tolerences tend to be finer when pushing design. Thats why there are limits on the height of safe construction. quote: quote: The point was that debris from WTC 1 and 2 caused immense damage, essentially destroying all the other WTC buildings, some of which partially collapsed. and that has nothing to do with the admission of freefall and global failure that a demolition causes. You people do more to incriminate the official "story" than keep it afloat with your ridiculous ploys and obfuscations. More bullshit from the purveyor of. When all else fails accuse your opponent of "obfuscation".

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 9:20:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The news caster talking around the time it fell, in the famous clip that is often used, was saying it was due to fall or had fallen. then you agree that it was planned demolition after all. Do you know the difference between planning a demolition and giving up on being able to save a building that is exhibiting signs of severe structural instability? I assume not.

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 9:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The news caster talking around the time it fell, in the famous clip that is often used, was saying it was due to fall or had fallen. There was a lot of confusion that day and the idea people in all the media outlets were given scripts to read from is absurd. And because it is absurd it cannot be true? You are a 911-apologist, Anaxagoras. It isn't about truth with you, but about what you believe to be true, about what you desperately want to be true. I was watching that news item. 7 was in the background. I didn't know that it was 7. She said that it had fallen. It fell twenty minutes later instead. She was clearly following a time-line script, probably fed to her by someone else. Somewhere up the line someone was not aware that there had been a major screw-up with the script. They probably had been so occupied with correcting the script for the other 911 screw ups that they had forgotten 7. Shit happens. Fortunately for such screw ups there is post operation damage control - and you among many others fell for that. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: the news even had 7 in the live background when they reported that it had collapsed! Does that not point to a stupid mistake on a live news show where all sorts of errors often happen? No, it rather points at you missing the point.

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 9:34:12 PM)
Umm, RealOne, your quotes because of their complexity are getting very hard to follow. Please do make an effort, as Anaxagoras already suggested, to clean up them quotes.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 9:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The news caster talking around the time it fell, in the famous clip that is often used, was saying it was due to fall or had fallen. There was a lot of confusion that day and the idea people in all the media outlets were given scripts to read from is absurd. And because it is absurd it cannot be true? Reasonable people look to the most probable explanation. You don't qualify in that regard so I don't expect a sensible explanation would appeal. quote: You are a 911-apologist, Anaxagoras. It isn't about truth with you, but about what you believe to be true, about what you desperately want to be true. I'm not an apologist, and I care about the truth. If I had any serious doubt I would be almost driven mad by the idea a real democratic Western government could do that. Like others on here, I can't tolerate the obvious 911 bullshit and lies. It is an intensely ugly thing for conspiracists to use a terrible tragedy as an excuse to further their political agendas. quote: I was watching that news item. 7 was in the background. I didn't know that it was 7. She said that it had fallen. It fell twenty minutes later instead. She was clearly following a time-line script, probably fed to her by someone else. Somewhere up the line someone was not aware that there had been a major screw-up with the script. They probably had been so occupied with correcting the script for the other 911 screw ups that they had forgotten 7. Shit happens. Fortunately for such screw ups there is post operation damage control - and you among many others fell for that. It is deeply stupid to think it was a script error due to manipulation. If the fucking tower was demolished deliberately then why would anyone take a risk by intervening to feed them the story when it would be there for them to report in the event itself. This isn't a story like the fucking moon landing being filmed in a warehouse. The destroyed building would be there for all to see. Like so much to do with 9/11 troofers, this little tale doesn't stack up against even the most basic level of enquiry and good sense.

Termyn8or -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 9:56:52 PM)
FR I can't believe you all are into this. I am gong back to Paltalk. Fuck it, at least you get some good tunes. T^T

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 10:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Rule And because it is absurd it cannot be true? Reasonable people look to the most probable explanation. You don't qualify in that regard so I don't expect a sensible explanation would appeal. You avoid the question. Scaredy cat? quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I'm not an apologist, and I care about the truth. [sm=rofl.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras If I had any serious doubt You won't ever have any. Parrots never have doubts. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I would be almost driven mad by the idea a real democratic Western government could do that. Well, then it is as well that you are a parrot, because then you won't go mad. You do not know even one whit about what real democratic Western governments are capable of doing. You won't ever make a general either. "I have one million men. If I save them all, I cannot win the battle. However, if I sacrifice one hundred thousand of them in a diversion, I can attack the enemy from the side and kill them all and win the battle." quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Like others on here, I can't tolerate the obvious 911 bullshit and lies. Neither can I. There were no planes. When will you have the grace to admit that the eye-witness reports that a plane flew into the second tower are extremely suspect and cannot be considered evidence of such an event indeed having happened? Oh, you are not an expert and needs must consult with one first, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It is an intensely ugly thing for conspiracists to use a terrible tragedy as an excuse to further their political agendas. I have no political agenda. But is seems to me that 911 was used as a pretext to attack Afghanistan. That is a political move, not so? quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It is deeply stupid to think it was a script error due to manipulation. If the fucking tower was demolished deliberately then why would anyone take a risk by intervening to feed them the story when it would be there for them to report in the event itself. I dunno. Shall we speculate? Me first: Foul ups do happen. If I plan a timed interdependent sequence A-F, the earlier the foul up, the more later events will occur at the planned time instead of at the proper interdependent time. Whereas if I plan only the interdependence, only the fouled up event will be fouled up and all later events will still occur at the proper interdependent time instead of at the planned time. But how will I inform my liege men to enact C at the proper time x minutes after event B? I am much to busy to communicate with all of them at once; besides, I am reading from a children's book when all of this happens. Ah, I will let the media inform them. I will send them a script, and if there is any foul up they can themselves adjust the script as required. Now it is your turn to speculate on this. Can you do better than mine?

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 11:07:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I'm not an apologist, and I care about the truth. Thats purely bullshit. It is deeply stupid to think it was a script error due to manipulation. If the fucking tower was demolished deliberately then why would anyone take a risk by intervening to feed them the story when it would be there for them to report in the event itself. This isn't a story like the fucking moon landing being filmed in a warehouse. The destroyed building would be there for all to see. No that is bullshit, its there for the gub and authorized cleanup people to see everyone else was kept out. that and as we can see no one knows what the fuck they are looking at when they see it anyway. Like so much to do with 9/11 troofers, this little tale doesn't stack up against even the most basic level of enquiry and good sense. You show contempt for those who seek truth yet claim you are one. Not likely. No one can point out damage to any VERTICAL COLUMN as you claim when all any HONEST PERSON CAN SEE IS SUPERFICIAL DAMAGE. COUPLE BROKEN WINDOWS AND FACADE DAMAGE! THOSE CONCLUSIONS POSTED REGARDING THOSE PICTURES ARE PURELY DISHONEST. Anyone here want to point out the column damage claimed by the poster go for it because the claims based on these pictures are totally dishonest and fraudulent. There is not evidence of ANY COLUMN DAMAGE even in high contrast none can be seen. Hell cant even see a fucking hole! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/7wtc-1.jpg[/image] Here is another one from your cite. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/wtc7holeanalysis_crop.jpg[/image] purely superficial damage! can hardly see a building there is so much smoke much less any damage and frankly only a complete "structural retard" would post these pics as evidence of damage to any columns. That damage would have to reach 1/3 of the way across the building to even touch one of those vertical columns. Those pictures you posted are purely bullshit and fraudulent. Properly designed buildings ABSOLUTELY DO NOT FREEFALL from even huge damage never ever. IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! even when other buildings fall against them [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Thisisacollapse006.jpg[/image] they fucking tip over. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/okc.jpg[/image] No amount of proof can convince someone who is either unknowledgeable or in denial. As can be seen above buildings DO NOT COLLAPSE FROM EVEN GROSS STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. You are just playing fucking word games like all debunkers do and put up bullshit that shows nothing and try to prove it by ASSUMING shit that does not exist. You bore me to tears because you show over and over that you are only capable of parroting debunkers and those you consider "experts", hence you do not know or understand any means and standards of measurement processes and therefore you are incapapble of being convinced of anything because you do not have the ability and background to make these sorts of determinations. You have proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt. I humored this shit long enough, only to make a point to people if in fact there are any on this board who do understand proper evidence, means, and measurements. If you were capable of debating this subject you would have already known that a freefall cannot occur in any reasonably properly designed building except through demolition. I proved the point it was a demolition regardless if you recognise it or not, and I am bored to fucking tears playing in your little fantasy because you have been beaten and do not even know it.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/12/2011 11:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule There were no planes. Hey rule here is one for you. this is a pic AFTER the alleged plane went through (cough) the building. The original hezerkoni video had one frame where that building was completely healed but and the timing was fucked up so you can see the bombs going off or some other cgi error. LOL [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Healedhole.jpg[/image] its amazing what you find when you go through this stuff frame by frame! LOL

KeriB -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 12:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder so all those dead people aboard those planes are all alive and their families just don't know? Why don't you tell these families then what happened to their loved ones so they can get them back? what dead people? the people who walked out of the pentagon hole said they seen no evidence of plane parts LOL I want to see piece of paper all the way back to their hospital birth records. you have no bonsfide evidence that what you say is true. the government said it does not cut it sorry. You want a fucking hospital birth record, I've got one for you. My brother was on one of the planes and he didn't just disappear into some undisclosed location somewhere. So, think next time before you start running off your mouth about shit you really don't have a fucking clue about. As for you Rule if you're really so smart and know where the planes went to and since you're obviously not with the government. Then get the fuck off your ass and tell people where the planes went, instead of being a said little dick sitting behind a computer spewing tripe.

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 1:34:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KeriB My brother was on one of the planes and he didn't just disappear into some undisclosed location somewhere. Now this is getting interesting. Would you care to divulge everything about your family and relatives? Not necessarily here, but put it somewhere on the internet so that someone who googles 911 and 'airplane passenger' can find it. For example on a genealogy page. How old was your brother and when last did you see him alive? (Got to establish whether he was alive or dead when he boarded that plane.) Which plane did he get on? Either of the two that never took off, or one of the other two that landed elsewhere? How high was his IQ? Has he or someone else of your relatives ever worked for a secret service, were they members of secret societies such as for example the freemasons, what are or were their professions, and of course birth and death dates? Were any of them in some way connected to powerful families, perchance by marriage? At which universities did they study, if any? Please supply any other information that you think is pertinent. For example: was any of your relatives a drugs trafficker. Did any ever murder anyone? Was your brother interested in space travel, or in acting? I repeat: there is no need to answer these questions here. Just put the information somewhere on the internet.

pahunkboy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 6:15:29 AM)
^ she is just being silly. // The official report ignores 7.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 7:02:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Rule And because it is absurd it cannot be true? Reasonable people look to the most probable explanation. You don't qualify in that regard so I don't expect a sensible explanation would appeal. You avoid the question. Scaredy cat? That is not avoiding the question. Inferred in my point is that absurd things can be true but we look for probable explanations because absurd things are very rarely true. Understand now? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I'm not an apologist, and I care about the truth. [sm=rofl.gif] Let me raise you a [sm=abducted.gif] and a [sm=biggrin.gif] because few on here believe you care about the truth beyond your own personal truth - namely pure fantasies. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras If I had any serious doubt You won't ever have any. Parrots never have doubts. I have plenty of doubts about many issues so you are wrong. I simply dislike creepy individuals who spread lies and fantasy with an obvious agenda. BTW how do you know that parrots (as in the bird variety) don't have doubts, an expert on that as well are you? [:D] quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I would be almost driven mad by the idea a real democratic Western government could do that. Well, then it is as well that you are a parrot, because then you won't go mad. Rule its seriously funny that you can't even think of a decent insult! [:D] quote: You do not know even one whit about what real democratic Western governments are capable of doing. You won't ever make a general either. "I have one million men. If I save them all, I cannot win the battle. However, if I sacrifice one hundred thousand of them in a diversion, I can attack the enemy from the side and kill them all and win the battle." That is an absurd thing to say Mr. Foreskin. To initiate a war in Afghanistan all they would have to do is fabricate evidence of conflict with the Taliban. It would be infinitely easier to do and cover up. Importantly no civilian lives would be lost, where there is typically great scruteny. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Like others on here, I can't tolerate the obvious 911 bullshit and lies. Neither can I. There were no planes. Mr. Foreskin hears some guy say there was a plane and starts a thread on that pretext to peddle his lies. He blithely ignores all evidence to the contrary, all the witnesses who spoke about the event, all the video material as fake. He wasn't there and hasn't published a thesis to reinforce his absurdist position. quote: When will you have the grace to admit that the eye-witness reports that a plane flew into the second tower are extremely suspect and cannot be considered evidence of such an event indeed having happened? Oh, you are not an expert and needs must consult with one first, eh? There you go about you being an expert again when you know nothing about the event. I read testimony, saw ample video of each of the contentious events including the first http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE82r4ycQs4 plane shot by firemen fixing a fire hydrant, listened to the many arguments of 9/11 troofers on forums and websites for years, and heard the rebuttals of the conspiracy debunkers. The debunkers won hands down every time. 9/11 troofers have been caught out with lies and psuedo science time and time again, including their present star David Chandler - see post 145, page 8. Its time for you to grow up Rule and accept everyone does not have to agree with your opinion. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It is an intensely ugly thing for conspiracists to use a terrible tragedy as an excuse to further their political agendas. I have no political agenda. But is seems to me that 911 was used as a pretext to attack Afghanistan. That is a political move, not so? It is self-evident far-right (and some far-left) conspiracists use the event to create political capital. They sow doubts over the events to further their surrounding hate messages. That is a cynical attempt use the deaths of these people for asn agenda. It is there on all their websites to see because they tie it in with far-right conspiracy theory. To compare that to the US authorities reacting to the event to invade Afghanistan, as a response to the Taliban sheltering Bin Laden after an attack on US territory, is absurd. They do not remotely compare. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras It is deeply stupid to think it was a script error due to manipulation. If the fucking tower was demolished deliberately then why would anyone take a risk by intervening to feed them the story when it would be there for them to report in the event itself. I dunno. Shall we speculate? I would rather not. I say this out of kindness, speculation is where your lunacy is most apparent. If you want to have a nice time on the forum I suggest you ease back on it. quote: Me first: Foul ups do happen. Obviously. quote: If I plan a timed interdependent sequence A-F, the earlier the foul up, the more later events will occur at the planned time instead of at the proper interdependent time. Bullshit. The planned time would obviously be the inter-dependent time for a sequence of events. quote: Whereas if I plan only the interdependence, only the fouled up event will be fouled up and all later events will still occur at the proper interdependent time instead of at the planned time. Again you are pulling this out of some orifice. It is so wrongheaded it is actually quite weird and may explain why you believe what you believe. Here you seem to be dropping any notion of time in a plan (first bolded text) but then reinserting it in the latter half of your sentence (second bolded text). You can't make a plan without putting time plans in, and then reinstert them for a later event(s). How very peculiar your mind is. quote: But how will I inform my liege men to enact C at the proper time x minutes after event B? I am much to busy to communicate with all of them at once; besides, I am reading from a children's book when all of this happens. Ah, I will let the media inform them. I will send them a script, and if there is any foul up they can themselves adjust the script as required. This is about as loony as it can get with you Rule. It illustrates how very few people take you seriously. So, the biggest conspiracy to be carried out in front of the media and the world has just one organiser who happens to be reading a children's book. Instead this organiser sends out a large number of scripts that many people will see. A few would have fallen into the wrong hands and/or senior media figures would have spoken out about it. Can you produce one of these scripts from a reputable source? quote: Now it is your turn to speculate on this. Can you do better than mine? I don't need to speculate. All I had to do was rubbish your scenario. No offense but I wouldn't waste my time because you refuse to consider anything other than your own beliefs.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625