Don't want to shatter your fragile mindsets....

When there is a case of opinion vs facts, facts win. Our not knowing why they did it the way they did it doesn't make the facts go away.

The craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

Even if what the people say about the other planes in this video...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzbVn3o8JNE"]9/11 CONSPIRACY: WAS FLIGHT 175 A MILITARY PLANE? - YouTube[/ame]

...turns out to be untrue, the photo of the craft that hit the Pentagon is enough to close the whole case. Why they did it the way they did it will come out later. For now, we know the government did it because the evidence is clear.

As long as you're here, could you give us your analysis of this video?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU"]9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying - YouTube[/ame]

 

Fee free to tell me what it says and I'll comment. You know, type out in YOUR own words.

Tick tock.

 

Translation-
This video has me cornered so I'd better tap dance around it instead of addressing it.

An objective truth-seeker wouldn't need to be spoon-fed.

 

He'll read,but only if its something that supports his ramblings and b.s.he wont read something that shoots down his lies and propaganda.Proof is in the pudding right here for example in his first couple replys.

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...oof-israli-involement-9-11-media-coverup.html

He has been exposed for the non truth seeker he is.lol.

 

well anybody that first debates him finds that out IMMEDIATELY about him within a day or two that thats how he operates.

 

could not have said it better myself.
Thats what cracks me up about the OCTA'S.every single one of them in debates,when you show a video of evidence and facts,they remain silent.Their debating skills are so poor they would not last one minute against a first grader in a debating contest. they never take you up on the challenge to refute the video.they always reply back with something like-your funny that you resort to youtube videos or that proves nothing,or something pathetic like that.

If they acted like that the way they do on message boards,the teacher would say-so and so,your not saying anything.I told you both before we started that you got to explain whats wrong with the information your opponent presented.scott presented you some information and all you have said is that doesnt prove anything.If thats all you can say,then you lose the debate and scott wins.They have no debating skills whatsoever. the number one rule in a debate is you take your opponents challenge and read the book or watch the video he refers you to and explain whats wrong with the information in it,they NEVER take you up on that challenge their such cowards.

 

Thats what The Bush dupes always do when they cant refust the facts is ask questions as though WE pulled it off when they SHOULD be asking Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield and the neocons those questions under a lie detector.Instead of acknowleding it was an inside job and accepting it,they evade the facts and evidence changing the subject by asking questions as though we were the ones that pulled it off or something.

and anyime you ask THEM the more important questions they should be asking which is how come all standard protocals the FAA AND NORAD have were violated that day and how come evidence was destroyed and removed and nobody got prosecuted or sent to jail for an illegal act ot how come nobody was reprimanded for their alleged incompetence,they change the subject and have no answers as well.lol.

 

LOL, that is hilariously ironic coming from you.

Your videos contain no evidence. Just opinion, theory, conjecture, innuendo and the like.

When there is a case of opinion vs opinion or theory vs theory then it comes down to probability and logic.

But then injest already explained that in Post #125.

 

Sorry your video has you cornered.

Go figure? Anyway, tell me what you want me to comment on and I'll be happy to do so. Or don't. I really don't care.

 

Based on what?

 

No.. YOU brought up these lies about my stance and slander about things I never said to try to accuse me of a flip flop.

I never disputed there was a conspiracy.. Any IDIOT knows that a conspiracy is when two or more people work together to do bad things... And any IDIOT knows that one guy didn't pilot four planes at the same time.

Your confusion of thinking I flip flopped arises from your obvious misunderstanding of a very simple word.

You claimed that I was a shame for the truth movement that I don't even associate with, because I said there was an "international conspiracy that threatens my country".. I simply stated that I NEVER claimed that whatever conspiracy was behind 9/11 is a CURRENT threat to my country now, ergo I wouldn't feel so compelled to take to the streets in activism.. Even if the twin towers were wired up personally by Bush and Rumfeld for controlled demo, they're hardly a threat NOW are they?

So it's not a flip flop so much as your dishonesty coupled with a complete inability to understand basic English.

Me saying 9/11 was obviously a conspiracy because it involved multiple people in no way contradicts or is a departure from the fact that I never argued a THREAT to my country at this CURRENT time from the same people behind 9/11.

The only THREAT is from traitors that want to justify torture and trample basic democratic principles like right to a trial and innocent until proven guilty.

 

Yes you did.

KSM confessed.
KSM hasn't recanted.

Why you're proud of a mass murderer is something you'll have to answer to some day. Good luck.

 

I was asking you WHAT INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY THAT THREATENED CURRENTLY MY COUNTRY

I wasn't saying what conspiracy, I was asking what conspiracy OF THE TYPE you claimed I proported.

KSM's confession was tortured out of him.. It is circumstantial evidence at best and has ZERO corroborating evidence.

You have NO PROOF he hasn't recanted.

Answer to whom?

 

KSM confessed.
KSM hasn't recanted.

Why you're proud of a mass murderer is something you'll have to answer to some day. Good luck.

 

Candycorn seems to be cornered by the evidence in this video.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU"]9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying - YouTube[/ame]

If this were a debating hall, the audience would be laughing at his refusal to analyze the basic points in it unless they are spoon-fed to him. Refusing to analyze evidence when requested to do so in a debate constitutes losing.

 

Still waiting to hear what part of the video you wish for me to comment on. So far it looks like a big rock. I guess there were big rocks found at ground zero? Is that it?

Any word on what took down the light poles? No? Carry on.

 

It's really amazing how you can be so shameless in your avoidance of this issue. Ok, I'll spoon feed it to you.
9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying - YouTube

The guy from NIST said he had never heard of any molten steel even though there had been photos of it. He asked the questioner to send him the photos and the questioner said he refused to give him his email address so he could send them to him.

Here's the link to the info about the light poles that you keep ignoring.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

 

Nice to see you succumbed to the rules of the game. So now that you've pinpointed it we can get started:

According to the guy who put up the video, he never got an e-mail address from the NIST? That is the part you wanted me to comment on?

Here's the link to the e-mail addresses.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/contact.cfm

It is a cop out to say "He never gave me the e-mail address".

I guess in another 450 posts, you'll write down what happened to the light poles? Or you could do it in the next one and save yourself a bunch of misery. Choice is yours.

 

You forgot this part.

Just click on this link and read post #1 to see the info about the light poles.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

 

Well, once the towers fell, the fire shifted from being an event of jet fuel and office contents to involving the entire building. We know from 1993 that there were automobiles parked beneath the buildings. They have gas in their tanks, battery acids, motor oil etc... There were likely several workshops for the maintenance persons in the basements and on lower floors as well. Perhaps they had acetylene torches, other chemicals, etc...

Who knows what was in the basement.

But moreover the basement of the building expands the menu of acceleration causes.

As for it being molten steel, I doubt there that these people are all lying but I would argue that they were mistaken. Obviously they are not metallurgic experts who are seeing molten metal and are likely mistaking it for molten steel.

As for the lightpoles, I explained the rules to you. I crack the whip, you make the trip.

 

Based on the scenarios put forth in the competing theories or opinions.

 

You're being deliberately obtuse. The issue is that the guy from NIST refused to give an address to which the questioner could send him the photos of the molten steel. Why did he refuse to give it to him.

You're being deliberately obtuse here too. The issue is not what caused the steel to melt. The issue is that the guy from NIST said he'd never heard about the molten steel even though lots of photos and footage of it had been available for a long time. Someone from NIST should have known about that. He was obviously cornered so he tap danced around and avoided the issue.

Please addresss the actual issues.

Here's the link with the info again for about the tenth time.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

Your insisting that I copy and paste post #1 before you'll look at it is very telling. Whether you click on the link and see the info in post #1, or I copy and paste it, the info is still there to look at. You are obviously cornered by this info and you're trying to stall as long as possible hoping I forget about it and it'll blow over. The longer you stall, the sillier you'll look.

You said the light pole issue trumped this evidence:
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-27.html#post4735087

I posted a link to an explanation that shows you're wrong. Let's hear your rebuttal to that info.

 

Most accuse me of being acute.

Dear madam, this is the reason I asked you to spell out what you wanted me to comment upon.

The guy who posted the video said that the lecturer did not give him the e-mail address. So it's he-said, she-said at this piont.

At any rate, I found the e-mail addresses to NIST in about 8 seconds. The guy has no case.

No, I'm asking you to have the courage stand by what you're stating instead of a link to a site on the Internet.

Man up.

 

You forgot to address this.