News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**
- Thread starter Ganymede
- Start date
Awesome! Thanks. I'm not sure why you'd pull this move; fear of argumentation is a possibility, but sheer ignorance is also fairly likely.
But I won't be obsessing over your idiocy at all, actually. I'm unbelievably happy when fools put me on ignore - it allows me to trash their foolishness without having to deal with nonsensical comebacks or bickering, which permits me to get the truth across to the reader. Reaching the mind of the willfully unenlightened is something no scholar can manage.
For example, I was especially amused how the obvious differences between a building fire in Spain, and WTC7 and the Twin Towers was deemed unworthy of your rebuttal even though the differentiation was obvious to anyone with a working brainstem.
Thanks again for putting on me ignore,
Geoff
But I won't be obsessing over your idiocy at all, actually. I'm unbelievably happy when fools put me on ignore - it allows me to trash their foolishness without having to deal with nonsensical comebacks or bickering, which permits me to get the truth across to the reader. Reaching the mind of the willfully unenlightened is something no scholar can manage.
For example, I was especially amused how the obvious differences between a building fire in Spain, and WTC7 and the Twin Towers was deemed unworthy of your rebuttal even though the differentiation was obvious to anyone with a working brainstem.
Thanks again for putting on me ignore,
Geoff
Lol, I would tend to think it's just your personality.
Just a hunch.
You come across as kind of ignorant.
You have probly heard this before I'm sure....just guessing.
I would put you on ignore too if you weren't so cute and entertaining.
Just a hunch.
You come across as kind of ignorant.
You have probly heard this before I'm sure....just guessing.
I would put you on ignore too if you weren't so cute and entertaining.
I can not speak on all of the little intricacies of the falling of the twin towers and how and why they fell like they did.
The issues that do concern me however are...
-Building 7 collapsing the way it did...
-The owner of these 3 towers (Silverstein)taking out a huge insurance policy just a few months before the attack ,putting in an extra clause for terrorist attacks and making a 7,000,000,000 (yes 7 billion) on his measily 15 million dollar investment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0
-The fact that Bush and others in high positions lied about not having any knowledge of these types of possible attacks (twin towers being attacked by hijacked airliners) when in fact these very drills were indeed practiced.
-The first time in history a president or vice president took direct control of the military agency (NORAD) on June 1 2001 making the general in charge stand down and on the very morning of 9/11 ran drills of airliners running into the twin towers.
Iceaura...please check this out...it's all of these little coincidences that bother me the most.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g
There are way more points that I personly find to be...nothing short of...well, I just can't wrap my head around it.
Gotta go for now, watching a movie with the gf
Peace
Lol, I would tend to think it's just your personality.
Just a hunch.
You come across as kind of ignorant.
You have probly heard this before I'm sure....just guessing.
I have always found that the greatest of fools are always very quick to make the accusation of ignorance when they have no ground to stand on. By "ignorant" do you mean "comprehension of the particulars and a functional brain"?
But tell me: how does the mighty synthesis of eeevil conservative conspiracy stand against the particulars of impacting planes, thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, electrical transformers and the on-site opinions of firefighters about matter they're most fit to judge - i.e. imminent building collapse? Hmm?
Ah: please do. Again, it saves me much bother.
Yes, that seems apparent.
You just said you weren't able to speak on it.
-The owner of these 3 towers (Silverstein)taking out a huge insurance policy just a few months before the attack ,putting in an extra clause for terrorist attacks and making a 7,000,000,000 (yes 7 billion) on his measily 15 million dollar investment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0
And Bush just decided to "give him a hand", did he? Thought he'd stop by and ram planes loaded with civilians into the Towers, eh? To which end? Ah - the invasion of Iraq, no? And yet the reason trumpeted in the media was the WMDs...which there weren't any of. What a logical conspiracy plan...not. Silverstein only got the $7 billion by suing people and making a nuisance of himself in court, I might add.
I started off the first link noting the classic Larry Silverstein misquote - "pull" meaning "pull the firefighters out", unless you also then accept his complete quote:
Well, well. I seem to have come across something else the conspiracy industry has missed in their rush to sell DVDs. But first, note his rationale for why the firefighters had to be pulled out, which completely agrees with the failure of water pressure and the FEMA statement.
Now - note the bolded text. So, taking Mr. Silverstein's words at complete face value - as you do in your unjudicious view - the fire department made the decision to "pull" the towers? They decided that? So now the fire department is in on it too?
I will say this: the presentation of the film is frighteningly biased. "Unidentified smoke"...which emerged in a giant plume visible in every video of the building. The film says that "no firefighters were in the building", and then says they were pulled out and then attempts to use this complete and obvious falsehood to say that the FEMA report contradicts. And so and so on. Even in the end your expert decides to go with his impression ("the same day? are you sure? the 11th?") rather than accept that it wasn't demolition. (They certainly had to go far for that interview, didn't they?
Yes. I can tell.
Is that it, that's your response?
Good for you geoffy, you spin so well you should be a reporter, lol.
Edit: Geoffy, maybe you haven't noticed but I wasn't talking to you.
Notice how I was speaking to Ice by notice of that little quote box?
But since this is an open forum theres not much I can do about it...lucky for you huh
Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself of your own opinion?
It really comes across as though your talking to hear yourself speak, cause no one else wants to listen...lol
You come across as much too biased yourself and are too interested in trying to appear witty or superior with your subtle slanders which makes myself very uninterested in carrying out any further forms of direct communication with you.
It's not your opinions, it's your personality that is unattractive and distasteful.
Don't be offended, this is what we call constructive criticism.
Maybe you don't know your being an ass.
So for shitz n giggles in this instance I will speak to you directly since you seem to want the attention...
what about the insurance claim taken out just before 9/11 with specific clauses added to include acts of terrorsim specificaly?
What about the lying of Bush and other high up officials of saying they had no idea that airliners could be used as weapons when those very exact drills including the pentagon were indeed practiced repeatedly?
What about the stand down of NORAD(first time in history) and the twin tower drills THE MORNING of 9/11?
If this doesn't even make you blink...then what's really even the point of speaking with you?
Your mind is made up...period.
And so we disagree...big deal.
Good for you geoffy, you spin so well you should be a reporter, lol.
Edit: Geoffy, maybe you haven't noticed but I wasn't talking to you.
Notice how I was speaking to Ice by notice of that little quote box?
But since this is an open forum theres not much I can do about it...lucky for you huh
Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself of your own opinion?
It really comes across as though your talking to hear yourself speak, cause no one else wants to listen...lol
You come across as much too biased yourself and are too interested in trying to appear witty or superior with your subtle slanders which makes myself very uninterested in carrying out any further forms of direct communication with you.
It's not your opinions, it's your personality that is unattractive and distasteful.
Don't be offended, this is what we call constructive criticism.
Maybe you don't know your being an ass.
So for shitz n giggles in this instance I will speak to you directly since you seem to want the attention...
what about the insurance claim taken out just before 9/11 with specific clauses added to include acts of terrorsim specificaly?
What about the lying of Bush and other high up officials of saying they had no idea that airliners could be used as weapons when those very exact drills including the pentagon were indeed practiced repeatedly?
What about the stand down of NORAD(first time in history) and the twin tower drills THE MORNING of 9/11?
If this doesn't even make you blink...then what's really even the point of speaking with you?
Your mind is made up...period.
And so we disagree...big deal.
Last edited:
Haha, yeah right geoff.
See my edited post you silly boy.
See my edited post you silly boy.
No. You all lose. Please explain how a job that would require virtually tearing apart two of the worlds largest publicly occupied buildings was done in order to do a controlled demo. And no one noticed until after 9-11?
Of course, anyone who's seen a controlled demo of even a small building knows they look nothing like the WTC towers falling, except for the falling part.
Maybe due to the hundreds of tons of building above the weakend section falling on the rest of them?
Just a note. One of the links Ganymede provided had a woman "scientist" saying, with no equations or justification, that the floors above didn't have nearly the kinetic energy required to cause those below to start collapsing. Gimme a fucking break.
I think he needs some more convincing sources...
Sheesh.
Hey Super, I didn't actually mean the "I win" part to all of those who disagree, only towards geoffy cause he seems like he kind of likes that "my dad can beat up your dad" type of communication...lol
Oh. Ok.
Hi pot.
No responses to my multiple posts regarding the virtual impossibiliy of rigging the WTC towers for the most spectacular controlled demo ever attempted?
Illustrate how that was spin, pedant.
Yet you are. You're hearing something you don't want to; having your assumptions challenged doesn't seem to agree with you.
OK, I'll just hammer your information then. It's easy enough, I have to admit. I always thought there'd be more to the whole "Troofer" thing...but this seems to be it.
:yawn: The guy who can reason is the ass. I see.
First: any proof of any of that? Let's establish our claims before we get crucified with them.
Well, you seemed to regard all the other 'evidence' as pretty canonical. Yet, none of the physical 'evidence' stoof up to even my very cursory reading of it. Why would I think this next round would be any better? I mean, I demolished the physical issues with the WTC7 fire and the Twin Towers in - what? 15 minutes? Yet instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and calling off your nonsense, you drop back to the new threshold for acceptance of a conspiracy. This is called "moving the goalposts", and it's bogus; the sign of an uneducated mind.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Nah, Geoff is just demoralized because he can't provide any evidence of any other building collapsing to fire. The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. And in it's 4.5 Billion year history, the only Steel Reinforced building to fall to a fire happend on September the 11th. The same day the President waited for 20 minutes while innocent Americans were getting burned alive by the thousands. The same day that our Military was ordered to stand down while another plane flew un-interrupted for over an hour before the second plane hit.
When I approach a convuluted challenge like this. I tend to fall back on Occam's Razor. So what is the simpilist explination?
We can believe 2 series of theories.
The first one being
1) The First time in the Planets History that a steel building collapsed to fire.
2) That the president was more concearned about the safe children in the classroom then the thousands of innocent americans that were being burned alive as he stood an waited.
3)The Worlds greatest radar system to ever go online, lost track of the Hijacked Planes.
4) The US military was unable to intercept the second plane, even though it was up in the air for an hour after the first plane attacked.
5) The Airforce was unable to intercept the plane that hit the pentagon, even though Andrews airforce base is located less then 10 mintues away.
6) You must also believe that Pentagon doesn't have a clear video of the alleged plane that hit it. Only a grainy amatuer UFO style video that shows a foggy blur at best. No satelite videos, not security cams, NADA.
Or we can believe this.
1)This was a inside job.
The simpilist explination is theory number 2 no doubt.
No geoff, right from the start, your just not worth the time...sorry bro.
Your just too much of an ass.
Your just too much of an ass.
Yes Ganymede, I'm in agreeance with you.
I have discussed these issues with others who disagree but was still able to carry on a civilized debate in a respectful manner, and this geoffy guy is just clueless as to why it's painfull to even interact with him, it's like I'm back in kindergarden.
Yet he thinks it's his points or opinion that I'm avoiding.
Geoffy, a hint...it's not your opinions...your just an ass.
I have discussed these issues with others who disagree but was still able to carry on a civilized debate in a respectful manner, and this geoffy guy is just clueless as to why it's painfull to even interact with him, it's like I'm back in kindergarden.
Yet he thinks it's his points or opinion that I'm avoiding.
Geoffy, a hint...it's not your opinions...your just an ass.
Which was also hit by two planes, or which had nearly a hundred thousand litres of diesel fuel and 12 transformers on the same floor the collapse happened on. Oh yeah, you got me.
This should be amusing.
After being hit by airplanes.
Or, better yet, caused a panic in a crisis which the full extent of was not known. Somewhat un-Churchillian for a world leader, but let's continue.
After they turned off the FFI, with only another 3500 radar contacts to keep track of.
See above.
See above.
There's a 1 sec exposure from a security camera that clearly shows a plane streaking in. You can even see the tailfin.
Requiring the explicit complicity of tens of thousands of people, having an extremely uncertain probability of success and at least three non-shaheed nutjobs suicidal enough to ram planes into buildings.
Oh, for sure: it's #2 all right. A big, steamy pile of it.
Then it's another win for me. Thanks again.