RE: There was a plane! (Full Version)

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



Message

Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 7:25:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Inferred in my point is that absurd things can be true

Speak plainly, please; i.e. without inferring.

So, the absurd can be true, eh? Then dismissing it as easily as you do, ain't quite the responsible thing to do, not so? No wonder that you never get at any truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
but we look for probable explanations because absurd things are very rarely true.

*big yawn* People who only look for probable explanations are incompetent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I simply dislike creepy individuals who spread lies and fantasy with an obvious agenda.

So do I.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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]

I expect they may have doubts.

quote:


Rule its seriously funny that you can't even think of a decent insult! [:D]

I have no desire nor intent to insult anyone.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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 scrutiny.

But would that get the USA the cooperation of foreign allies? And the support of their own people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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.

That is twice that you are name-calling. lol
Running out of arguments, are you?

I have thoroughly examined lots of evidence. In this thread I have convincingly argued that some witness testimonies are extremely suspect and cannot be considered to constitute evidence. Video material obviously, as it can easily be tampered with - just look at the movie Avatar - does not constitute credible evidence.



Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 7:34:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
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 pseudo 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.

Tsk, tsk. You again are evading the question. I am not at all interested in your sob accounts and rantings about this or that website and your failure to get at the heart of the matter. I asked you question. Answer it or simply say that you lack the expertise to answer it.



Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 7:58:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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.

You are fond off the word 'absurd'. I suppose lots of incomprehensible things are absurd as far as you are concerned?

You also are weird. Instead of concerning yourself with a search for the truth you keep ranting about political capital. Apparently you value political capital far higher than any truth. It is boring - and you once more show that as far as the search for truth is concerned, you cannot be taken seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Shall we speculate?

I would rather not. I say this out of kindness, speculation is where your lunacy is most apparent.

A lack of creativity. Not surprising, but now officially noted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
You can't make a plan without putting time plans in, and then reinsert them for a later event(s).

I can. Why cannot you?

Event A at time X.
Event B at time Y (= X + y) minutes.
Event C at time Z (= Y + z) minutes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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.

Large number? How do you know that it was a large number? Do you have inside information?

Nope, one or a few copies may have been sufficient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I don't need to speculate.

I rather surmise that the correct verb is 'can't'.



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:06:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I'm not an apologist, and I care about the truth.


Thats purely bullshit. 

That is funny from an individual who I debunked repeatedly on here but keeps parroting his responses regardless.

quote:

quote:


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.

That is utter bullshit but I wouldn't expect anything else from R0. We are talking about keeping people back from a disaster zone as it was ongoing for fuck sake. That is normal practice. The fact remains that all would see the demolished building so it would be an utterly stupid risk to send people in the media actual scripts. Why the fuck would they need scripts. "The building is up" now "oh look the building is down" - its that fucking simple.

quote:

quote:


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.

This coming from you who keeps haranging people is [sm=biggrin.gif] - I'm trying to navigate through the haze of bullshit from the smoke bombs 9/11 troofers lob at any debate.

quote:



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.

Again I say that in the link which contains the image it illustrates where the columns are in the building. A large number ran across the interior.

quote:


Hell cant even see a fucking hole!
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/7wtc-1.jpg[/image]

Just get fucking glasses as I told you repeatedly, I'm sure anyone with normal eyesight can. There is a big fucking gash all the way from the top of the one purely yellow line down to the bottom of it. Most of the damage is obsecured by smoke but some of it is clearly visible.

quote:


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.

Ah the old "superficial damage" cannard again. I'm accused of parroting by conspiracist loons but look at the bilge you lot repeatedly post up time and time again.

Just look at the mid-way point between floors 9 and 13 where a lot of material was gauged out of the building. Most is obsecured by smoke but other areas like the nearest point of the building on floor 9 and its furthermost point demonstrate serious damage. BTW the smoke is a result of serious fires which conspiracy loons pretend were tiny.

The blacked out area is from another structure that was in the way but witnesses attest that this was an area where immense damage occurred. The NIST lead team, dreaded by every conspiracist, stated: "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out".

A structural retard, eh? The pure idiocy of your posts, and repeated bleetings making the same points time and time again even when clearly debunked by video evidence etc., won't offer others much help with respect to putting faith in your views.

quote:


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.

More bullshit, you are comparing different buildings in a very different scenaio. In Tower 7's case the uncontrolled fire combined with the damage where many tons of masonry from Tower 1 fell at very high speeds on it. The point you are trying to make is ridiculous. A far smaller building fell partly against a building of about four times its volume. Wow.

Furthermore Tower 7 did not free-fall. 7/8ths of the time it was not in free-fall..

quote:


[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.

Again I remind you that Tower 7 is not commensurate with every other fucking building that was seriously damaged. The point was already established on this thread that streel structured buildings do collapse as a result of fire, as with Tower 7. Reinforced concrete steel buildings probably do not.

Others in denial or unknowledgeable? [:D] The words pot and kettle come to mind!

quote:


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.

What you have proven my dear friend R0 is that you cannot argue properly. You cite charts, write text in multi-coloured fonts, plaster up photos of other buildings but all you can do is repeat what you have learned in 101 conspiracy class. I debunked a few of your points such as the length the building 7 took to collapse and you just dropped the point instead of conceding. Then you have the nerve to lecture me about truth.

I remember the abusive way in which you and Rule treated Julia for example. You try to bully others. You are a hypocrite giving out about other photos if they are smokey whilst using opposing photos that are hard to see liberally yourself http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3806833

quote:


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.

This quote alone proves how delusional you are. [sm=abducted.gif] Your just frustrated that I won't be browbeaten down by your bullshit.



outhere69 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:09:17 AM)

Nothing, and I mean nothing, that we say will every let RO, hunk, or Rule approach reality wrt 9-11. Nothing. Defending reality simply makes you part of the grand conspiracy.

I'll never forget seeing someone post a picture of radome from a a terrestrial microwave link and claiming that was the radome off one of the jets. Or seeing these jokers assume some grand conspiracy was responsible for the broken landing gear on the streets.



pahunkboy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:17:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Nothing, and I mean nothing, that we say will every let RO, hunk, or Rule approach reality wrt 9-11. Nothing. Defending reality simply makes you part of the grand conspiracy.

I'll never forget seeing someone post a picture of radome from a a terrestrial microwave link and claiming that was the radome off one of the jets. Or seeing these jokers assume some grand conspiracy was responsible for the broken landing gear on the streets.



7 was imploded.  and you are correct-   nothing will convince me otherwise.  a 47 story building does not just free fall - when no plane hit it.    



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:23:02 AM)

Rule if you are going to reply to my posts, don't fucking plaster up three responses, do it neatly in one.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Inferred in my point is that absurd things can be true

Speak plainly, please; i.e. without inferring.

So you can't read properly then?

quote:


So, the absurd can be true, eh? Then dismissing it as easily as you do, ain't quite the responsible thing to do, not so? No wonder that you never get at any truth.

LOL Rule, the point was that absurd in the loony sense can be true in theory but very very very rarely is. I didn't dismiss the 9/11 troofer claims, I considered them, looked at the debunker replies and saw their explanations were stronger.

For you to dismiss all the reasonable explanations, the considerable body of testimony and video material to go on a wild fantasy ride and present it as truth demonstrates amply that you not only have zero respect for the truth but are actually immune to it when it confronts you.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
but we look for probable explanations because absurd things are very rarely true.

*big yawn* People who only look for probable explanations are incompetent.

No people who look for probable explanations because they are likely to be the truth are sane, quite unlike yourself.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I simply dislike creepy individuals who spread lies and fantasy with an obvious agenda.

So do I.

What a shame it is that you look like one of those individuals in some respects.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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]

I expect they may have doubts.

Wow Rule is a mind reading parrot expert too... [:D]

quote:

quote:


Rule its seriously funny that you can't even think of a decent insult! [:D]

I have no desire nor intent to insult anyone.

I don't think so. You lobbed quite a few personal attacks on my character.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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 scrutiny.

But would that get the USA the cooperation of foreign allies? And the support of their own people?

Quite probably it would if they created a very serious incident. The US, UK and NATO co-operating together had already engaged in military campaigns in the mid to late 90's.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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.

That is twice that you are name-calling. lol
Running out of arguments, are you?

Not at all, you claim to be an expert on foreskins so I thought you would take it as a compliment! [:D] It is way nicer than Moon's "Foreskin Boy" is it not?

quote:


I have thoroughly examined lots of evidence. In this thread I have convincingly argued that some witness testimonies are extremely suspect and cannot be considered to constitute evidence. Video material obviously, as it can easily be tampered with - just look at the movie Avatar - does not constitute credible evidence.

You did not do so but dream on as per usual. Avatar came out years later. CGI in many cases looks realistic but not completely so especially with regard to natural movement.



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:27:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
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 pseudo 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.

Tsk, tsk. You again are evading the question. I am not at all interested in your sob accounts and rantings about this or that website and your failure to get at the heart of the matter. I asked you question. Answer it or simply say that you lack the expertise to answer it.

I did answer the bloody question lol. I said I looked at a good bit of material, considered pro and anti arguments. I came to different conclusions.

Just a suggestion but maybe your er... investigations into 9/11 might lead to better conclusions if you actually learned how to read properly first?



Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:36:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69
Nothing, and I mean nothing, that we say will every let RO, hunk, or Rule approach reality wrt 9-11. Nothing.

Well, conceivably I am delusional. If you can show me that I am, or that it never happened, or that you are merely pixels on a computer screen, yes then you might convince me that my perception of reality is wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69
Defending reality simply makes you part of the grand conspiracy.

Or a 911-apologist. In any case 911-apologists are not defending reality, but merely their perception of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69
I'll never forget seeing someone post a picture of radome from a a terrestrial microwave link and claiming that was the radome off one of the jets.

Here you are not discussing a matter pertinent to the thread, but ranting about one of your obsessions. Duh.

(I haven't even the foggiest idea about what a radome is, nor any interest.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69
Or seeing these jokers assume some grand conspiracy was responsible for the broken landing gear on the streets.

Heck, I can carry a small one around in my trouser pocket. To ditch a larger one surreptitiously on a street one simple needs a larger trouser.

Now, it would have been far more convincing if an entire crashed airplane had been ditched in the street - but I guess their trouser pockets weren't that large. So they were either destitute, or misers.



Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:40:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
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?

I did answer the bloody question lol.

Where? When? Nope, you still have not answered my question.



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:43:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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.

You are fond off the word 'absurd'. I suppose lots of incomprehensible things are absurd as far as you are concerned?

Not at all. However, 9/11 is not incomprehensible. It is only mademysterious by those with an agenda to pour doubt on the event.

Here is a definition of absurd "Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See Synonyms at foolish." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absurd

quote:


You also are weird. Instead of concerning yourself with a search for the truth you keep ranting about political capital. Apparently you value political capital far higher than any truth. It is boring - and you once more show that as far as the search for truth is concerned, you cannot be taken seriously.

Bullshit, the political stance the advocates of 9/11 conspiracies adopt is extremely revealing. It actually gets to the truth of the matter becuase it reveals what motivates them.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Shall we speculate?

I would rather not. I say this out of kindness, speculation is where your lunacy is most apparent.

A lack of creativity. Not surprising, but now officially noted.

Seems a wild imagination is what you value most when trying to understand a complex situation, "lets just create a fiction based on zero evidence and spread it as truth"! [:D]

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
You can't make a plan without putting time plans in, and then reinsert them for a later event(s).

I can. Why cannot you?

Again, you can becuase you are an irrational fantasist. In Rule's plan Event A has no time but subsequent inter-dependent events at a later time which partly depend on A do. [:D]

quote:


Event A at time X.
Event B at time Y (= X + y) minutes.
Event C at time Z (= Y + z) minutes.

I suppose Rule is an expert in mathematics too!!!. So if time X ends up being a negative value taking away from time Y what does that do to Rule's equation, and more importantly his plan? [8D]

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
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.

Large number? How do you know that it was a large number? Do you have inside information?

OMG What paranoid feverish little mind at work! It is reasonable to assume bacause there are a large number of prominent institutions.

quote:


Nope, one or a few copies may have been sufficient.

So one copy of the text for all the international media institutions around the world would have been enough? [:D]

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I don't need to speculate.

I rather surmise that the correct verb is 'can't'.

Again your imagination is getting the better of you! [8D]



pahunkboy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:55:55 AM)

On live TV they reported that building 7 fell- with the building,  47 stories right there in plain view-  20 minutes before it actually fell.   The building was right there live for the reporters and viewers to see. 



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:57:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
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?

I did answer the bloody question lol.

Where? When? Nope, you still have not answered my question.

LOL this is a good. I replied to the point and still it isn't good enough so he changes the question

Here is a repsonse to troofers about eye witness reports which references numerous other articles:
quote:

Since we have so many good images of the second hit, and because physical evidence is profoundly more reliable than witness testimony, investigations into this aspect of the case are largely irrelevant. The only potentially meaninful study of eyewitnesses would be a survey of a substantial number of the witnesses who were observing the tower at the time of impact. And it's very easy to surmise that the number of witnesses should be, at the very least, in the thousands, and more probably in the tens of thousands due to the attention the smoking north tower was receiving from a city of millions and the vast number of potential vantage points with a view of the second plane's trajectory. A study with a large sample would minimize the influence of either planted testimony or erronious reports.

What we do know of eyewitness testimony so far supports the scenario of 767s hitting the towers. In addition to accounts from civilians like Evan Fairbanks, the oral histories released by the New York Times show that at least 50 FDNY firemen saw planes or plane debris in the streets. The no-planer treatment of eyewitnesses is as weak as their physical evidence analysis. The second plane was not visible from some vantage points because downtown buildings or the WTC themselves were in the way. Therefore, some people only saw the explosion. Not surprisingly, the no-planers have tried to present these accounts as no-plane testimony. Morgan Reynolds told MSNBC that he doesn't "believe anyone in Lower Manhattan" and implies that anyone who saw a plane was an actor on the government payroll.
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 8:58:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Nothing, and I mean nothing, that we say will every let RO, hunk, or Rule approach reality wrt 9-11. Nothing. Defending reality simply makes you part of the grand conspiracy.

That true that when the only thing people can say is the bullshit of their contrived reality that just happens to defy physics.

I'll never forget seeing someone post a picture of radome from a a terrestrial microwave link and claiming that was the radome off one of the jets. Or seeing these jokers assume some grand conspiracy was responsible for the broken landing gear on the streets.



7 was imploded.  and you are correct-   nothing will convince me otherwise.  a 47 story building does not just free fall - when no plane hit it.    



yep

He has proven that he does not understand the material and is trying to win an argument by twisting around and inappropriate application and mischaractrization literally everything involved and on every imaginable level.

These guys do this on every board.  They replace correct characterization bonafide evidence with bullshit of their own contravance.

Truth in fact is not about who can tell the most dramatically convincing bullshit story, its about bottom lines.

The bottom line is that NIST admits to freefall and no building properly designed can freefall unless it is prepped to be or is demolished.

He can dance all day scream and hollar and cry foul ball slice and dice every word and piece of data but his titanic is still SUNK and the government did it for him.

He has proven himself incapable of evaluating the matter to obtain correct results.

Exactly like those who do not know shit about energy. They have for decades called people kooks who claim the tesla (free energy) towers work.  Now they have to eat their crow.  Its the same thing here.

Buildings, properly designed, DO NOT freefall.  Period.

and anyone who thinks they do is smokin some really good shit.



Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 9:00:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Rule if you are going to reply to my posts, don't fucking plaster up three responses, do it neatly in one.

I didn't have the time to respond to the entire post at once. Besides, in such a long post one loses track of the matter at hand.



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 9:04:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
On live TV they reported that building 7 fell- with the building,  47 stories right there in plain view-  20 minutes before it actually fell.   The building was right there live for the reporters and viewers to see. 

PA did we not already discuss this issue a few pages back. I made the point that live TV can fuck up as is very well known. Firefighters had already pulled out and it was known the building was probably going to come down as it had been declared unsafe. Even on the famous clip conspiracists use, the news caster is saying that. Misreporting die to error isn't uncommon especially in a chaotic situation like that day.



pahunkboy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 9:06:41 AM)

There is not a 20 minute time lag.  Not on live TV.  



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 9:06:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Rule if you are going to reply to my posts, don't fucking plaster up three responses, do it neatly in one.

I didn't have the time to respond to the entire post at once. Besides, in such a long post one loses track of the matter at hand.

LOL the posts came within minutes of each other judging by the time stamp but no matter, I like replying to your posts regardless! [:D]



Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 9:09:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
There is not a 20 minute time lag.  Not on live TV.  

She reported the fall 20 minutes early but it was done live on a live newscast. That day most TV stations were reporting the events live as they happened.



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/13/2011 9:11:03 AM)

He is just a government apologist, doing everything in their power hold up the delusion.

Never anything real.  They use their intelligence to distort and misrepresent every thing in a "plausible" manner to smooth over the atrocities that governments do against the people.

Its what they do.

on every board out here lol





Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875