Really? I mean come on now.

Discussion in '9/11' started by macljack, Mar 4, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You confuse justification with validation. I'm not surprised. Big words tend to give twoofers trouble.
     
  2. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Either way, it was manufactured...artificially created. You know, it's fairly comical though. Donny Rummy still refuses to be nailed down as to whether or not his band of criminals would have invaded Iraq without the faked WMD's.

    9/11 was staged. Wake up and smell the coffee.
     
  3. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like using a comma where there's clearly no conjunction?
     
  4. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There would be no point... You keep failing to address the main idea, that it was unecessary.. Sky Stryker just told you that (again) and you failed to address that.

    By the time they controlled Iraq, they ALREADY HAD their wars. Ergo planting WMD's would accomplish nothing to further the national interests of the United States.

    You didn't address it.

    I told you that before and in order to escape the common sense reality that it would accomplish nothing and be pointless to plant these WMD's, you responded well it would accomplish SOMETHING, i.e. improve the poll position and political clout for the GOP!!! As if they should pull off the same calibre stunts to secure US strategic objectives as to win an election!

    I explained to you that you invalidate your own comparison between the two when you CHANGE the motive.. Like saying somebody couldn't have stolen in order to feed their starving family, because they didn't steal later, after their family was fed, in order to buy concert tickets.

    You just whined that you wanted the batting practice, but can't even step up to the plate!

    There is no reason anyway.. You've not made a cogent argument to respond to, ergo cogent counterargument needn't apply.

    Your argument is invalid and illogical.. Since A did not do B for motive X, then A couldn't have possibly done C either, for motive Y.. It's nonsense.
     
  5. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is something called politics. You should find out about it and avoid appearing to be such a neophyte.


    Your arguments are silly on the surface and it probably makes you angry that they are dismissed so readily. Remember when I took you to school about flight 93 being shot down?

    Battin' Practice!

    Remember when you said that the President posed for pictures outside of the school and then later had to run from it?

    Battin' Practice!

    I'm not even sure what you think happened any longer because your arguments are so preposterous on their face.

    What isn't in argument are the light poles which show AA77 hit the Pentagon.

    What isn't in argument is that anybody who would kill 3,000 people to justify another illegal act--preemptively invading Iraq--would have zero problem planting WMDs in the desert somewhere to validate the decisions.

    What isn't in argument is that after 9 years, the truth movement has gotten nowhere. I personally think that the movement died probably in 2004 and what has taken place since then--almost without exceptioni--is that there are just malcontents on the internet yearning for the attention they can't get in real life so they make these ridiculous claims.

    Hence this and other message boards.

    SIDEBAR You know, rtwingfraud still thinks flight 93 was shot down. I showed you the light on that. If you're really interested in the truth, why are you not arguing with him or her? Let me guess, that doesn't give you any attention so you're not willing to do it. Am I right? Of course I am.
     
  6. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gee, perhaps you can lead us through how they staged it...just sit down and type out--in reasonable detail naming names and such--just how it was staged. How they planted supposed thermite in the buildings, had 93 shot down for no reason, etc...

    We both know you won't--at least not without cutting and pasting, videos, etc...

    You're making a claim--it was staged. Now back it up. Oh yeah, your side doesn't recognize such a yin and yang relationship between allegations and proof.

    How sad you all are.
     
  7. Whale

    Whale Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is coming from some kid who blows off the problem of snapping huge box columns by saying..."they're 90% hollow"?

    With the low intellect and complete lack of structural knowledge you display your opinion carries no more weight than an 8 year old who would decide to latch on to either side of this debate.

    You're like a bobble doll nodding it's head without anything in it.
     
  8. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uhh no, I never said that. Please attempt some form of reading comprehension.

    Please tell us your story about how it "was staged". C'mon, you can write a few paragraphs without resulting to insults can't you? I doubt it but I'll stand to be corrected. Something tells me you won't do it.

    How sad.
     
  9. Whale

    Whale Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never forwarded a single "story" or any "was staged" scenario whatsoever kiddo.
    Not a single one.

    Your straw man garbage can't disguise how ridiculous your arguments are.

    You're delusional and you have zero understanding of anything structural, not even on a common sense basis.
     
  10. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes I know you haven't put your cards on the table. Some would call that cowardice. What would you call it?
     
  11. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pray do tell how columns, which although huge to your innocent eyes, which were designed to cope with the STATIC load of the above floors are somehow ALSO supposed to deal with that load now being DYNAMIC.

    You do "know" the very real difference being dymanic makes to a previously static load, don't you ???

    BTW ... has it pinged yet that Hannibal was NOT saying thecolumsn "themselves" were 90% "hollow", and that this is your misinterpretation, for anybody that knows anything KNOWS that all structures such as buildings are more than 90% hollow ... they are structures surrounding a greater area of mostly air after all !!!

    Oh! ... perhaps then you would be more than able to blind us all with your understanding of Euler's as it relates to tall slender structures then ???
     
  12. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My favorite insanity of the moment is insisting that a couple hundred tons of metal, flying at over 500 mph, does not have enough force to break through a column of a WTC tower... Riiiiiiiiiight.
     
  13. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm suggesting it was staged. My OPINION. I base that opinion mainly on the fact that the "ommission" report was so inept. I know the "official" story is BS, so, I formed an opinion that is was staged. You can't prove that it wasn't, nor can you prove the "official" report was anything but lies because there is no way to verify that fable. So where do you want to go now?
     
  14. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tons of metal flying around at 500 miles an hour, do not do so without "help".
    NANO-NANO. You people must have failed junior high physics badly.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The "help" are called "pilots". (Amazing what 'truthers' don't know.)
    In the case of 9/11 those pilots were hijackers.
     
  16. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was talking about the beams from the buildings being ejected out the sides as they came down. Pilots? Like that one that "supposedly" flew 77 into the Pentagon (passing a nuclear facility and doing the fancy, schmancy, acrobatic turn diving at 500 miles an hour, then flying inches of the ground to hit the Pentagon. Hanji "I can't even fly a Cesna" but I can do acrobatic tricks with a 767. That the pilot you referring to? Or the remote controlled ones?
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, in your opinion, how was it staged?
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok...well...in my opinion, I think the nanothermite was in equipment being brought in during the various weekend power downs. The renovations with the nano mixed in with the paint they used to paint walls, columns. Nobody had to know anything. Coulda been in the computer equipment, or any other number of ways. All that elevator maintenance..hey...there ya go. It didn't need to be wired. I believe, in my opinion, that it ignition was done remotely, probably from WTC7 which, in my opinion, they were using for remote guidance of the planes and to run the whole dastardly plan from that "command center", which is why is fell later in the afternoon...they had to get rid of it as well. Not as difficult as one would think when everything is compartmentalized. Joe doesn't know what Jim, who works with Bob, is doing. He's just a painter. John just delivers equipment. See? Everybody just got the buildings ready for demolition without knowing a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting theory.

    I know this is just your opinion, but do you really believe there were 'various weekend power downs' of the WTC?

    You do realize there was only one partial power down of one portion of one tower - right? Just a few floors. The 'various weekend power downs' is a myth.

    And ... 'nano-thermite' in computer equipment? Really?
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  21. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    No...not myths. There were at least three, and also what, months? for the elevator "work"? All under the care of Marvin (from a distance, of course).
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you have a source for this claim?

    Even Forbes, who is the source for the whole 'power down' theory, says it was 26 hours in one weekend. (As cited in my link, above.)
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I have read it and tons of information over the years. I don't have it at my fingertips presently, but I know it to be true. I do not need to prove it to you. You can find answers to all these questions yourself if you really wanted to. Why don't you cut me a break and go shill somebody else..ok?
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have also done my research, and I provided you with a citation to back up my claim. I even did it from a 'truther' website, so you could look at it comfortably.

    Without support, your claim collapses. At free fall acceleration.

    Not sure if you can verb the word 'shill'. If the request for evidence is too much for you, that's fine.
     
  25. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you "know" it was steel beams ... you do know the building was CLAD in ALUMINIUM ???

    For what reason could it not be the aluminium cladding being thrown about ... after all aluminium is LIGHTWEIGHT, ergo, easily flung around ???

    And a much less visually identifiable target from the air ... the Pentagon is GLARINGLY obvious !!!

    What EXACTLY is fancy, schmancy or acrobatic about a DESCENDING TURN ???

    This is easy stuff ... Hanjour did a wide circle descent covering some 330° which is NOT a hard feat ... in fact, if anything, this shows him as still an amateur pilot that he even needed to do such a wide turn !!!

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI"]YouTube - Flight 77 NTSB Animation[/ame]

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405#

    http://www.911myths.com/images/0/09/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

    http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

    Not inches ... FEET !!!

    Are aircraft somehow not able to fly low and level then ... doing a slow descending turn and levelling out is NOT that difficult !!!

    Book yourself some time in a live flight simulator and find out ...

    http://www.flyaces.com/index.html

    http://www.agustawestland.com/content/simulator-training-services

    http://www.apstraining.com/simulator-training/level-d-full-flight-simulator/

    http://www.balticaa.com/en/faciliti...ulators-ffs/saab-340---full-flight-simulator/

    Find one local to you and book ... what's hard about that, and NOTHING better than actually finding out for yourself just how easy that manoeuvre is !!!

    It's HANI and and it was a 757 !!!

    Do you not realise that just because at ONE point he was unable to fly well a Cesna does not preclude him from IMPROVING ... by your criteria ALL pilots are therefore unable to fly too, because as SOME point in their training they too could not "fly" a Cesna either.

    This is an idiotic statement ... as he OBVIOUSLY improved enough to sit and PASS the test proceedures to become a FULLY CERTIFIED FAA AIRMAN.

    It is beyond stupid to take one point in time and apply that to the entirety and the future !!!

    Why do truthers even try making such asinine pronouncements ???
     

Share This Page