RE: total insanity!

Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Jan 18, 2015.

  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is something straight out of YOUR playbook in that you go along and assert something and then when I prove you wrong, you just sweep it under the rug. This is unacceptable! I proved with proper math on the subject that the claim "WTC tower wall was mostly windows" was WRONG
    the window openings amount to less than 1/3 of the area and its proven.
    Damn straight I'm pissed, so ALL of you people who are convinced beyond any doubt that 9/11/2001 was the product of radical Arabs hijacking airliners ( etc.... ) if you live long enough to watch your grandchildren grow up, have a look at the world they will inherit because of the LIE, I guarantee you will not like what you see.

    But hey ..... ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER!
     
  2. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Rage thread?

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you point us to your post that has the math you used to prove this?
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is normal.

    http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways.html
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------
    9. Play Dumb

    No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
    -----------------------------------------

    When disinfo agents are checkmated, they go into a bury-it mode. They deny reality and try to bury the part of the thread in which they're checkmated by trying to change the subject to reduce the number of viewers who see it. If they succeed, they'll go on as if nothing had happened.

    What the truther then has to do is keep linking back to the part of the thread in which they were checkmated to thwart their attempts to bury it. This can go on for thirty pages.

    Try to put the important info on page one of threads. That way the the bury-it tactic won't work.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=390915&page=3&p=1064629314#post1064629314
     
  5. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It was the Annunaki Lizard people using fake Vulcan passports, and aligned with the Elvis impersinator conspiracy hair club for men.
     
  6. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,299
    Likes Received:
    7,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, it was radical muslims, in part financed by one of the rich Saudis, flying commercial aircraft into the twin towers. Some very powerful group, used this attack to bring down those buildings, but Bld 7 was the "tell".

    If you follow the money, where most of the money spent on Afghanistan and Iraq, went to, in who's hands it ended up in, you will find some of the guilty party. If you look around to see if there were any think tank plans, that involved military action in the middle east, with some of those men going into the Bush Admin, you will find the other part of the puzzle.

    So, your bizzaro world tale, is so far out there as to be space cadet material. For I think it is you that says the buildings were not hit by aircraft. For it left cartoonish imprint on the sides of those buildings. Which is exactly what would have happened if two huge aircraft hit the side of those buildings. They don't splat like a bug in your windshield. It would be closer to a ball of aluminum hitting your windshield at 500 miles per hour. It would take your head off.

    I don't guess that fire was real either. Those people that jumped out were just fake people, dummies, sex dolls.

    I do bet though, that whoever rigged those buildings to implode, thought that the people above where the planes hit, would be able to get down past the damage. I don't think they knew just how badly and extensive the damage would be. So, those people were probably supposed to survive, with only a small loss of life on the floors the plane impacted. Then when everyone has time to get the hell out of the building, the timers set the thermite off, and the rest is history.

    And even this is unbelievable, but much more likely than the tale told by a madman that you are holding to. No offense though man, but your kind of tale diverts attention away from perhaps what actually happened.
     
  7. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't you find this story just as implausible as the no-plane scenario?

    I find the demolition hypothesis fraught with technical and logistical problems, and highly impractical. Furthermore, for it to work, it depended on the hijack part of the tale going off without a hitch.

    And how is thermite fire-proof? How does it cause an implosion?

    No, that one is too way out to give it any credence as well.
     
  8. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,378
    Likes Received:
    1,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly! If someone wanted to take down the Twin Towers and make it look like a terrorist attack why would they make this elaborate plot with thermite and holographic jets when they could simply plant some moles in a known terrorist group and convince them to fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon then just hide any intel showing that a terrorist attack was imminent?
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    1. Harrit's thermite paper has been shown to be garbage.
    2. If explosives were used to sever 8 floors worth of structural support, then why does Chandler's graph shown a period of no free fall when the roofline started to descend? I thought severed structural supports caused immediate free fall? This no free fall period indicates that no demolition occurred.
    3. Richard Gage and AE911 Truth lie through their teeth on many points, two addressed below:
    a) WTC7 did not totally collapse in 6 to 7 seconds.
    b) WTC7 was NOT a symmetrical collapse.
    4. Thermite does not explode so why are your videos citing explosions? Contradiction... which was it?

    Just a few things to show your "evidence" is worthless.
     
  10. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These are points I've been trying to explain. Chandler's hypothesis is self-contradictory, and as the free-fall was noted at the 12.5 second mark, how does that support Chandler's 'instantaneous and protracted free-fall' claim? Furthermore, the belief in the symmetrical collapse (therefore free-fall being universal as opposed to localised) is just erroneous.
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Here's an example of the games these pro-official version people play.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/230813-proof-positive-no-plane-flew-over-pentagon-9.html

    In post #88 a pro-official version poster misquoted the info I posted. I kept asking him to link to the quote and all he and the other pro-official version people did was tap dance around the issue for six pages.

    They never admitted that it was a misquotation. Objective truth-seekers don't play that game. Paid sophists play that game.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quit whining scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c...NO ONE misquoted you.

    NO ONE 'tap danced' around the issue

    YOU just didn't like our answers.

    And that's NOT our fault
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Funny how I posted a couple of refutations to your posts in post #9 and you just tap danced around them. You must not be a truth seeker.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I was in a hurry this morning and I didn't have time.


    If any viewers don't have time to watch this whole video.,,

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

    ...just watch the part that starts at the 4:27:48 time mark. It's a summary of proof that the falls were consistent with controlled demolition.


    Anyone who takes the time to read those parts of the thread will see that you are wrong. You're trying to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to read that part of the thread. You're just going to look silly in the eyes of those who actually read it though.
     
  15. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only if they have no knowledge of the subject. You just produced long-dead canards and memes that have long been disproved. So you rhetoric has no real relevance.
     
  16. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    37,771
    Likes Received:
    10,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We know how the towers came down. It makes sense.

    No "inside job" nonsense required to explain it.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You're misrepresenting the issue at hand to confuse the viewers. The issue is not why the towers fell. The issue is whether the pro-official version poster deliberately misquoted the articles and video I'd posted. I guess I'll have to post the dialogue to make it clear.

    Here's what I said in post #87.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=230813&page=9&p=1061620019#post1061620019

    Here's the reply in post #88.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=230813&page=9&p=1061620179#post1061620179
    The quote, "American Airlines 77 crashed into the Pentagon." is nowhere to be found in either of the articles or the video. His posting that false quote was a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. I spent the next six pages asking the poster to link to where that was said. All he did was tap dance around and try to change the subject which is the behavior of a cornered liar. When I finally got tired of repeatedly asking him to link to the quote, they went on as if nothing had happened and the issue got buried deep in the thread. When these pro-official version posters get checkmated, they don't acknowledge that they're wrong. They try to bury the part of the thread where they're checkmated to reduce the number of viewers who see it.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And how does your post above fit in with the fact that your pushing propaganda that clearly has lies and misinformation in it? I specifically mentioned a couple of items above and you were conveniently "in a hurry and didn't have time to respond".

    So are you going to address these lies and misinformation brought to your attention or are you going to continually hide behind your excuses of "being misquoted" and "being in a hurry"?
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Taken from here: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_13.htm
     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You're trying to muddy the waters here. It's all pretty clear but I'll lay it all out anyway.

    Look at post #88 of the thread.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=230813&page=9&p=1061620179#post1061620179

    It doesn't say "Crashing". It says , "Crashed".

    Post #88 implies that the article says that flight 77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon.

    Here's the paragraph from which you got that sentence you posted with the quoted sentence in bold.
    http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_13.htm
    (excerpt)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Almost every detail and event in the 'official story' of 9/11 carries some element of unexplained contradiction and suspension of logic. The official narrative regarding American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon is no different. First of all, as with all other hijacked planes that morning, it was allowed to fly unimpeded and wildly off-course for an excruciatingly long period of time. According to the New York Times, "within a few minutes" after 8:48 a.m., controllers knew that "American 77 had probably been hijacked." (NYTimes, 15 September, 2001, Wald, Matthew) Moreover, the flight's transponder was turned off at 8:56 a.m., a sure sign to controllers, in light of one plane already having crashed into the North Tower and another unresponsive and heading to NYC, that AA 77 had been hijacked.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your quote is not the quote from post #88.

    I think the issue is clear now. The issue is that the poster (Hannibal) deliberately misquoted the info in post #87.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=230813&page=9&p=1061620019#post1061620019
    He didn't say whether the quote came from one of the ariticles, or the video.

    In post #109...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=230813&page=11&p=1061638771#post1061638771

    ...I said this.
    The pro-official version posters never did show the time mark of the video where somebody said that, or find the quote in the articles.

    The pro-official version poster (Hannibal) who made post #88...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=230813&page=9&p=1061620179#post1061620179

    ...totally destroyed his credibility when he made that post. The rest of the pro-official posters totally destroyed their credibility when they tap danced around and tried to muddy the waters instead of addressing the issue. Now you are destroying your credibility by avoiding the issue too. You people obviously don't believe your own arguments.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I took his post as tongue in cheek, but you're having a hard time with that. Not my problem. The fact that you want to squabble over "crashed" or "crashing" in a quote is quite funny, but whatever,

    You are correct that the exact quote was not in the article or video you posted.

    So now that's out of the way, are you going to address the lies and misinformation pointed out in the propaganda you're pushing or are you going to continue to hide?

    Maybe you're "still in too much of a hurry" to post?
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But it's not out of the way. We have to discuss why he misquoted the info and why he and the others kept trying to change the subject instead of admitting is was a misquote. Do you think they might be professional sophists who work for a public relations firm that was hired by the government to try to control the damage?
    http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways.html
    http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
    http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/phantomtruth/conversations/messages/10893

    This thread is about the behavior of pro-offical version posters on this forum so that should be our main topic here. I think the points you brought up in post #9 are pretty much addressed in this video.

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

    Have you watched it?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then you have to take it up with them.

    Nope.

    No, this thread was about genericBob and his supposeldy proving the towers were made of less than 1/3 windows, which proved that what someone else said was wrong, and him being pissed because nobody acknowledged it. You were the one that tried to turn it into a broader scope that included only supporters of the official story.

    Why only the supporters of the official story Scott? Aren't there truthers on here that do the same thing Scoot? Kind of like what you're doing in this very thread? I cornered you about a couple of lies and misinformation in the garbage you keep linking to, but you refuse to address them. You just "swept them under the rug" like you are accusing the official story supporters of doing. You even made the excuse that your were "in a hurry" as to the reason why you didn't respond and then proceeded to post three more times.


    No Scott, I want YOU to address why the information you post has known lies and why you continue to support it.

    Example.

    If you are such a stickler to detail like you pointed out in my quote above that it actually used the word "crashing" instead of crashed", then explain how you can support an organization that says WTC7 collapsed in 6 to 7 seconds? As much as you want to cry foul about somebody posting a wrong quote because you think it may mislead readers, why aren't you crying about some of the folks in your camp who do much worse?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I did a little research regarding your post history Scott and actually read through some of them back to 2011. You know what I found out? All you practically ever do is post lins to information you think supports your beliefs. I have yet to see you defend any points in your links that people find incorrect. All you do is post more links. You did the same thing here:

    So again Scott, why are you supporting and providing links that contains lies incorrect information. Richard Gage and his cronies say that WTC7 collapsed in 6 to 7 seconds Scott. Is that correct? They say that WTC7 collapsed symmetrically Scott. Is that the truth?

    Can you answer yourself or just provide more links to information that provide NO explanation whatsoever why YOU keep supporting lies.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm asking you for your opinion on their behavior. This puts their credibility as truth-seekers in serious doubt and you're playing it down. This is very telling. Your playing this down is seriously hurting your credibility. Let's hear your opinion.

    They're not known lies.

    (from post #9)
    If you'll take the time to watch this video...

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

    ...you'll see that the truther's position is that both thermite and explosives were used.

    I'd have to look for their exact quote on the 6 to 7 seconds but it looks like about that to me.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=building+7+freefall

    The collapse looks pretty symmetrical to me too.

    Maybe the top explosives were detonated first.


    You have an authoritative patronizing attitude but what you're actually saying is pretty lame.
     

Share This Page