RE: The Big Lie!

RE: The Big Lie! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 11:30:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Just to spell it out, You claim the towers were brought down by something besides the afterefects of crashing airliners into them. Tell me who, what, when, where and how. Likewise just to spell it out; i will not confuse the issue with who what and when, we will stick to how. Until how is determined the rest is meaningless. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm not watching video and transcribing period. If I need an expert opinion to refute something you claim I'm not asking that person to watch a video. Present text or admit you can't and stop bothering people with this. You can use anything you want to back up your statements as will I, and let the world decide which evidence is bonafide. You know damn well a bomb cannot testify on a witness stand and say "i went boom" however i will be happy to transcribe anything pertinent in any video i use to support any assertion i make as well as others who find videos that are pertinent to my case. There will be no censorship of evidence. Either we run with it or admit your case cannot stand up against the evidence. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I will choose specialistsI know and trust the opinions of. If I do resort to an outside expert I will supply their credentials unless you want to reveal identifying information about yourself that is all you'll get. Likewise then. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Statements made in the heat of the moment are not terribly reliable. That has been demonstrated time and again. Testimonies of police officers involved in shootouts, firemen, and EMT's etc stand up in court therefore anyone in government making statements on the subject is allowed. That is unless you can provide a psychological profile of them that excuses them as being mentally incapacitated.

DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 11:42:05 AM)
All right then complete 100% accurate transcripts of every video you wish to use produced by you or your supporters will be permitted. Note any error of any sort in the transcription that I find invalidates all transcripts and all videos. That way I don't have to keep arguing with you when you fail to transcribe properly. Just the how is unacceptable you must provide when, where and what was done as well at a minimum. I'll let you avoid who and why but that is it. Otherwise you don't have anything but unsupported claims and vague handwavings on methods and materials. Excited utterances are well known to be of poor accuracy and will not be permitted. That courts allow them is irrelevant.

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 12:01:56 PM)
Only witnesses can decribe what was done which is what you want to allow. either witnesses or admit you cannot stand up to the evidence. Period. You do not see lucky attached to my name and i assure you that transcriptions will be done with gramatical accuracy, however you can ask others who have listened to them to verify their accuracy, with the exception of lucky. If an error was made it will be promptly corrected. All presented evidence within the context of this debate will be preserved.

DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 12:56:42 PM)
Then you can't provide anything beyond people on 9/11? That isn't going to be nearly enough. You have now functionally admitted to having no evidence beyond rumors flying about on the day of the event. Which BTW would make it true that car bombs had exploded in downtown D.C. since multiple reports by police and others of that occured. Here's the deal if all you've got is some cop or firefighter saying "get back there's a bomb" then you've got nothing. Now I've been quite reasonable in what is needed so put up or shut up.

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 1:50:37 PM)
Wrong. we are setting the rules of engagement, and i have close to 100gig so i am ready to rumble and we can rock and roll. Like stacking a jury you want to debate evidence that you deem beneficial to your case and you want to restrict evidence that is beneficial to mine. i am giving you the exact same opportunity that i "demand" for myself. That is to present the evidence and you do the same for your case. There is "nothing" unfair about it. Unless you feel you have no case. Provide everything you feel is evidence and we will look at it and likewise i will do the same. The proper way to get to the truth is through looking at the evidence or lack of it. If you want to debate dc that is another time and place. It is your responsibility to bring forth evidence to refute my witnesses then, so dig up your own. if not you obviously have no case or your case is so eweak that it cannot stand up to the facts and i will accept your concession because we will not have a debate without all relevant evidence. take it or leave it. You made the challenge so in your own words put up or shut up

DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 2:04:50 PM)
I never said a word about presenting anything myself. I challenged you to present your theory with any supporting evidence that met some fairly basic standards. That you have once again tried to put words in my mouth is sad. Now either present a timeline and your evidence for what happened before 9/11 based on your theory or stop the constant blathering.

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 2:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I never said a word about presenting anything myself. I challenged you to present your theory with any supporting evidence that met some fairly basic standards. That you have once again tried to put words in my mouth is sad. Now either present a timeline and your evidence for what happened before 9/11 based on your theory or stop the constant blathering. well if you care to re-read your own post you will see who put words into hos mouth ok. not until we agree on evidence, i am busy doing my nuke thing and dont have all that much time to play keyboard masterbation here, so its either agree with the all evidence or back out because i will not waste my time, and then i will talk about other evidence, if that is not acceptable i will accept your concession and we can call it day.

DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 3:45:47 PM)
I concede nothing. Present evidence. Not some utterance by a cop but your actual evidence. As a matter of fact don't use anything said on 9/11 at all. If you have anything at all as to what was done you must have more evidence than videos of the aftermath of the crashes don't you? You're not a pathetic liar making all this up for some reason are you? If you can't present a timeline and supporting evidence for what went on before 9/11 then you have nothing. What happened before 8:45 AM EDT 9/11/2001? Lets see your evidence for that.

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 4:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I concede nothing. Present evidence. Not some utterance by a cop but your actual evidence. As a matter of fact don't use anything said on 9/11 at all. If you have anything at all as to what was done you must have more evidence than videos of the aftermath of the crashes don't you? You're not a pathetic liar making all this up for some reason are you? If you can't present a timeline and supporting evidence for what went on before 9/11 then you have nothing. What happened before 8:45 AM EDT 9/11/2001? Lets see your evidence for that. cough... i hope you dont stoop to the same level of childishness certain others do with the liar bit. like i said we will not be having much of a debate without all and any evidence being allowed. period. Once you agree to that, then feel free to elaborate on what specifically you are talking about regarding this time line. then present whatever it is you want to go over and i will go ever all your evidence even tho we both know you cant trump the bomb evidence i have.

thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 5:20:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 No, thompson, in your question you posed a false assumption(2 actually). What were these two false assumptions? Perhaps you do not recognize that you did. I was quite specific in explaining it was not only the heat from the jet fuel that caused the building to fall, you tried to slip a 3rd false assumption in later claiming it 'imploded', Would you mind showing me where? therefore your question was not relevant. It would appear that you consider your opinion as the only thing that is relevant. Also the potential BTUs in the jet fuel have nothing to do with explosive force, Are you really saying that explosive force and BTU have absolutely no relationship?Where did you study physics? which you accept the results form the Brain trusts guestimates on. For the umpteenth time ...I have accepted nothing I am seeking information. Please tell me somehting based in reality, I would love to hear it, It would appear from your posts that you love to hear nothing except those who agree with you. and actually discuss it. I find it interesting that I request a bit of information and you challenge me to prove that you are wrong. I think that is called a non sequester. You have demonstrated that you are simply unable to....ROFLMAO

DomKen -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 8:38:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne cough... i hope you dont stoop to the same level of childishness certain others do with the liar bit. like i said we will not be having much of a debate without all and any evidence being allowed. period. Once you agree to that, then feel free to elaborate on what specifically you are talking about regarding this time line. then present whatever it is you want to go over and i will go ever all your evidence even tho we both know you cant trump the bomb evidence i have. I've already proven that you're a liar. I'm giving you another chance, Mostly it is true to to give me some amusement in trashing whatever laughable theory you try and present but it is another chance to prove you're something more than a liar and an attention seeking waste of carbon. I don't particularly care to dig through tons of video clips of cops and others on 9/11. That isn't evidence of anything at all. If somebody faked the whole thing then present what evidence of when and how they did it. In detail. If it makes you feel better I'll give you that various people on 9/11 said there were bombs. But that ain't proof. How, when, where, what? In detail with supporting evidence. So one more time. Present a timeline with evidence. End that timeline at 8:44 AM EDT 9/11/2001 or earlier. If you can't it is pretty conclusive proof you've got nothing.

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 9:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne cough... i hope you dont stoop to the same level of childishness certain others do with the liar bit. like i said we will not be having much of a debate without all and any evidence being allowed. period. Once you agree to that, then feel free to elaborate on what specifically you are talking about regarding this time line. then present whatever it is you want to go over and i will go ever all your evidence even tho we both know you cant trump the bomb evidence i have. I've already proven that you're a liar. I'm giving you another chance, Mostly it is true to to give me some amusement in trashing whatever laughable theory you try and present but it is another chance to prove you're something more than a liar and an attention seeking waste of carbon. I don't particularly care to dig through tons of video clips of cops and others on 9/11. That isn't evidence of anything at all. If somebody faked the whole thing then present what evidence of when and how they did it. In detail. If it makes you feel better I'll give you that various people on 9/11 said there were bombs. But that ain't proof. How, when, where, what? In detail with supporting evidence. So one more time. Present a timeline with evidence. End that timeline at 8:44 AM EDT 9/11/2001 or earlier. If you can't it is pretty conclusive proof you've got nothing. Tsk tsk are we angry? you are so cute when you are angry. you havent proven a damn thing aside that you need to stack the deck in your favor and just like lucky you typically go awol mid thread when the going gets rough so fine we will stoop to the same level as lucky dog and you can call names. Just like lucky dog! that will surely validate your 911 position. That makes everything you say true doesnt it! LMAO Hell maybe you are lucky dog with a different nick huh i would know for sure if i gave you a reading test. Anyway you do not want to play fair so be it, that is your choice, so fine you just conceded the contest. i gave you every opportunity to show your stuff as well as you had the opportunity to investigate any witness(s) or data i provided as i did yours on equal grounds within the terms i stated. i concede nothing, nor will i participate in a rigged debate. It is obvious you have no case or you would not fear the use of ALL the evidence to be brought forth but stacking the deck is the only way you know how to play so be it, debate it with lucky you can talk to yourself, you two are a good match for each other if your are not the same person anyway, enjoy. ya i know i am a liar liar pants on fire, mommy r1 lied wah wah wah... ROFLMAO you proved nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqeQwMSliA

ModeratorEleven -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 10:01:23 PM)
Grow up children. You won't be asked again. XI

mydestiny2043 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/17/2007 11:35:04 PM)
Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut - A very good mind-opening and thought provoking video on the attack on 9/11. I was particularily interested in one of the many people interviewed on this. His name is Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories. In a letter to Frank Gayle of The National Institute for Standards and Technology: "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard requires the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000 F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproffed steel will not melt until reaching redhot temperatures of nearly 3000 F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000 F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildngs makes no sense at all. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers." - Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories. ( As such, days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position.) Van Romero, Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology said, "My opinion is based on videotapes, tht after airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." - 10 days later - "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." Why would Romero change his mind so suddenly? Here are some interesting facts from Pentagon Research The fact that three out of the four aircraft including those piloted by experienced military pilots did not broadcast any emergency signal is suspicious. Flight 93 announced there was a bomb on board before shutting off its transponder. The numerous war games and emergency drills being conducted by government agencies that day (some with exact parallels to what really happened) are coincidences beyond reason. The loss of cargo and U.S. Mail was never mentioned by anyone, most notably the U.S. Postal Service. I would like to see the cargo manifest for each of those four aircraft on 9/11. That could have been millions of dollars in losses figuring that each aircraft had 1670 cubic feet of cargo space and regularly transported U.S. mail. The FBI won't let us see that information either. The Pentagon should release all video of the event and allow independent verification of its authenticity. We have seen video of other major events that day and even videos of the 1993 WTC bombing, Madrid bombing and London bombings. The two videos the Department of Justice has released do not show anything that is identifiable as a 757. Why is the rest of the Pentagon video so secret? A media contingent should be taken on a tour to the location where the Flight 77 wreckage is stored and allowed to verify the serial numbers of the pieces. They almost entirely reconstructed TWA 800 and even did videos to explain that event for the public. Why is Flight 77 so different? If the government just did these simple "right-to-know" actions for American citizens, then in a 10 minute news broadcast our questions could be answered in regards to what happened at the Pentagon. But that would mean the public focus would shift to other elements of 9/11 and maybe that's what they don't want. But what would they want to hide? If nothing else facts like this should make one at least question what really went on that day even if nobody agrees on every aspect fo what happened prior or after the fact.Imho would it not be more productive and beneficial to all if everyone worked together to try and find out once band for all what the "big lie" or "big truth" really is? Instead of discussions that turn into name calling and flared tempers?Just my 2 cents and I will apologize now for my uninvited commentary and intrusion on your debate.[:o]

thornhappy -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/18/2007 4:22:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mydestiny2043 Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut - A very good mind-opening and thought provoking video on the attack on 9/11. I was particularily interested in one of the many people interviewed on this. His name is Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories. In a letter to Frank Gayle of The National Institute for Standards and Technology: "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard requires the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000 F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproffed steel will not melt until reaching redhot temperatures of nearly 3000 F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000 F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildngs makes no sense at all. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I" Is ASTM E119 is it melt or deform? The failure analysis types all pointed to warping for the interior trusses (the insulation was blasted off), not melting. Second, it's no great conspiracy if one guy from a government lab goes off on his own tangent as a representative of that agency. In addition, what was his specialty at UL? Sometimes there are more details needed than what's in a book. This whole post was full of all sorts of mistakes, especially about the transponders and the bomb claim abooard 93. These guys had enough training to turn off the transponder, and what better way to keep people in their seats than to claim a bomb was on board?

mydestiny2043 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/18/2007 11:12:24 PM)
quote: If nothing else facts like this should make one at least question what really went on that day even if nobody agrees on every aspect fo what happened prior or after the fact.Imho would it not be more productive and beneficial to all if everyone worked together to try and find out once band for all what the "big lie" or "big truth" really is? Instead of discussions that turn into name calling and flared tempers?Just my 2 cents and I will apologize now for my uninvited commentary and intrusion on your debate.

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/19/2007 8:25:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Is ASTM E119 is it melt or deform? The failure analysis types all pointed to warping for the interior trusses (the insulation was blasted off), not melting. Second, it's no great conspiracy if one guy from a government lab goes off on his own tangent as a representative of that agency. In addition, what was his specialty at UL? Sometimes there are more details needed than what's in a book. This whole post was full of all sorts of mistakes, especially about the transponders and the bomb claim abooard 93. These guys had enough training to turn off the transponder, and what better way to keep people in their seats than to claim a bomb was on board? What exactly is deform? how hot does it have to get to "deform" Insulate is irrelevant if we know the temperature the iron got to. So you feel that the only thing a person is "capable" of doing correctly is what they are a professional at? So if you are a brick layer you cannot be a gourmet cook then? If you are a physicist you cannot do electrical engineering? Mechanical engineering? Isnt that a rather narrow and limited view of peoples capabilities yours included? Just because he does not carry the title of "world trade center structural engineer" with minors in jet fuel, demolition, government coverups, crashes hardly disqualifies him from "figuring" it out imo. Finally do people of your opinion hold yourselves to the same standards that you hold others to? Such that what are your qualifications and what title do you hold? Are you a qualified professional personnel director that has interviewed these people that you disqualified? Is that why you feel you are capable of determining "who" is qualified to do which analysis here? If you have reviewed these people please state exactly what part of their resume or past performance disqualifies them from making the assertions and conclusions they made. Since we have self proclaimed "truth tellers" in this thread who's primary focus is attaching the "lies" label rather than getting to the bottom of the incident, especially considering these same people cannot comprehend what they read yet proclaim everyone else is lying it would be nice to know your "job title" to insure that you hold yourself to the same precision standards that you hold others too. What mistakes? Dont forget this was the first building in history to actually be "designed" to withstand an aircraft crash! Whats your point about the transponders?

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/19/2007 10:52:28 PM)
Yet the liar lable fits perfectly when one is telling bold faced lies, like the towers fell "nice and neatly" or into thier "footprint". They didn't, there is plenty of film and pictures that show otherwise. I understand, you have to slip that lie past people in order to set up your premise. But a person has to be an idiot or have no skill in critical thinking at all to buy into it. If you do not like having your lies pointed out, quit telling them....I have asked you repeatedly to give one fact that debunks the official story, you refuse. And people draw conclusions from that Real....

Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/19/2007 10:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Nope, as I have said many times, there were lots of explosions, in the fire and collapse. I am not calling the firemen liars for saying they heard explosions. I called you a liar for claiming the building fell "nice and neatly" when in fact it damaged buildings blocks away, among other things. You are unable to debunk a single point in the offical story, you just claim they are Jew connected shills. So walk away if you have nothing else to say.... Or preferably actually debate a point. First off it was "not" a collapse, technically it was a controlled demolition that has been incorrectly and loosely defined as a collapse. Secondly you are calling me a liar for something YOU SAID NOT SOMETHING I SAID!!!! We shall all wait for you cite where I ever used the term neat! i DID NOT!!! Once again lucky redefines obfuscates what i say then argues his replacement labels in place of what i actually said!!! Self proclaimed mr. truth that he is. Next once again pulling the topic away from the wtc to call me jew hater because reseach has shown that the PM magazine peer review was staged by the government between kissing cuzinz! What can i say maybe he should consider choosing his sources better next time. Lastly one can hardly call what lucky puts out a debate, keyboard masterbation, fuck fest, obfuscation, hyperbole, defamatory, misleading, misdirecting, obscuring, anything to pull peoples attention off of the "REAL" issues as is easily seen where he now wants to argue something i never said and rather than argue what i did say, turn this into a how neat is neat bullshit fest of his own creation. Who says you cant get something from nothing. Oh thats right the federal reserve does it all the time i forgot.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/19/2007 11:20:22 PM)
No Real you are again lying. If you go to Heretics thread called credibility post 10 http://www.collarchat.com/m_957358/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#957358 you will find Real saying, "Oh one final thought on 911, call up a couple demolition crews in the hood, ones who do big buildings and ask them, you might have to twist their arms as they prefer not to talk about it, but if you can get them to talk about it as them how come those buildings came dowen so nice and neetly, i did and i tried to tell people here. anyway i will shut up about 911 now even tho it is one of my fav topics now days. " I responded to this assertion with photographic evidence it is false in post 20 of that thread. Go back to the Opening Post of this thread and you will see Real moved my post over here to start this thread. Real you have been caugth telling a direct lie(again), this time about your own assertions. I await your apology.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875