TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 [119] 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} It most certainly was directed at you; answers pleez. Are you now accusing me of plagerising material? Good gracious, when will it end?  |
| quote: |
I have also addressed your top down, bottom up point of error. You speak in cliches, much like the official story. Sticking to key phrases in order to maintain control of information and position in a conversation (because this certainly isn't a debate anymore)  |
Alright, well how about we deal with one thing at a time? The Physics behind the collapse do not comply with the Pancake Theory. This is the fact of the matter.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Alright, well how about we deal with one thing at a time? The Physics behind the collapse do not comply with the Pancake Theory. This is the fact of the matter. |
Krypton, here's a nice resource if you insist on arguing with the mentally-deranged. Might be a nice place to start to illustrate that controlled demolition doesn't fit in with the "physics" on the day, despite the retards proclaiming otherwise. There are all kinds of technical documents well beyond the capacity for self-proclaimed demolition/engineer "expert" liars to grasp.
i would recommend just ignoring them though, let them wallow in their own anti-intellectual stupidity.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Intolerance of criticism. Wouldn't expect any other response... |
| quote: |
Ok, Mr. unaccredited lawyer. Because that is what you're doing. You're trying to build a case, no? Well, you're doing an awful job at it. |
| quote: |
Here we go with the "sheeple" bullshit again. Honestly, fuck off. |
| quote: |
Oh, twisting words, oh noezzzz. You're paranoid accusations that I'm a government agent is probably the stupidest thing I've EVER encountered in this forum. #1. That says a lot. |
| quote: |
Please, spare me this "status quo" piece of shit argument. You have no case. Get it? You want people to believe you? MAKE A FUCKING CASE. Is it that hard to understand? Your theories are so full of fallacies, it's funny you label every one of mine as fallacious. I'm sure you've not even a clue what a syllogism is...HINT: you should use it more often. |
| quote: |
It wasn't directed at me, you numbskull! What, do I have to address every plagiarized thing you guys post? Again, I said, the buildings fell TOP DOWN, not BOTTOM UP as in a controlled demolition. |
| quote: |
So, policies of our president, somehow proves a 9/11 conspiracy? Wow, where does it stop and where does it begin. What else is new? Bush family responsible for Kennedy assassination?  |
| quote: |
| As a liberal, I stand firmly in support of the protection of civil liberties, at all times, in war and peace. That's why I support organizations such as the ACLU which is constantly on the front line when the government infringes upon civil liberties. |
| quote: |
But I ask again, if your case is so right, so spot on, with so much "evidence", why haven't you, or anyone like you, filed a court case, taken your case to a prosecutor, to have the perpetrators brought to justice. I think I know. YOU HAVE NO CASE.... You can dance around this all you want. Call me a troll, sheeple, or brainwashed. I see right through the bullshit dude, keep trying... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Your theories are so full of fallacies, it's funny you label every one of mine as fallacious. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton I believe it does according to NOVA's "Why the Towers Fell" documentary. And THAT is the fact of the matter... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} It most certainly was directed at you; answers pleez. Are you now accusing me of plagerising material? Good gracious, when will it end? I have also addressed your top down, bottom up point of error. You speak in cliches, much like the official story. Sticking to key phrases in order to maintain control of information and position in a conversation (because this certainly isn't a debate anymore) |
Well, that's not expressing your views in totality, is it? I'd say that's a cop out, at best, and plagiarism at worst.
Do you understand NOVA's explanation? How does it suit the situation more appropriately than the path of least resistance? I am curious to know how the Pancake Theory actually works, or how it complies with the Conservation of Energy or Momentum!! There must be a simple explanation, right? Occam's Razor to the rescue.
NOVA never got into the science behind the collapse, it relied on camera angles, sound track and subconscious rendering of emotions based on sympathy for the victims. I recall one of the main professionals used in the 10 second sound bytes was a supporter of a fellow who proposes that acid rain had a big hand in the collapse of 7.
The Pancake Theory cannot account for the squibs either; which are the high energy, high velocity puffs of smoke exploding trough windows at least a hundred feet ahead of the collapse, indicating some other force at work.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X ??? I don't even know what you're smoking but I sure as heck want some! Intolerance of criticism? Look in the mirror, pal. I was criticising YOU for twisting MY WORDS!! You twist what I say and then when i call you on it I'm somehow not able to take criticism? Get a clue you dipshit!! |
| quote: |
| No, I'm simply studying all of the omissions, distortions, and blatant manipulations of your friends. I never claimed to be a lwayer nor would I ever want to be one. Why do you continue to use this as a straw man when I've stated this how many times now? |
| quote: |
| Well, I guess constantly arguing with someone who doesn't even want to uncover the truth makes me feel like they're either a lost cause or just another steak on the table (cannon fodder) for the same financial elite who want to keep us all stupid and in the dark. |
| quote: |
| The fact is that I find you to be absolutely clueless as you obediently accept all of the lies that we've been told and to me that is the very definition of a sheep. Bahhhhhhhh. |
| quote: |
| And I'm sure if you were one you would probably say that exact same thing. With psy-ops and info warfare now having been fully aimed at U.S. citizens I wouldn't doubt for one second that it's entirely possible. |
| quote: |
| Well, there are millions of people across the country who believe otherwise. Just because some twit who doesn't even want to look at the facts says that the governments story is correct while the 9/11 Commission leaders themselves said (for the tenth time time now): |
| quote: |
| It wasn't? It sure looks like it was to me. |
| quote: |
| Where did I ever say that? No, again you're twisting my words. The policies that our administration was able to pass AFTER the attacks of 9/11. Do you actually think that the people would really have stood by and allowed Bush to destroy the Constitution if had not been on his phoney "War on Terror?" 9/11 was the catalyst for ramping up the police state agenda and without 9/11 and the associated fearmongering I doubt it would have been possible. |
| quote: |
| I think it's funny that your traitorous ass even pretends to be an American. |
| quote: |
| Ummm, duhhhhh!! (said in the most retarded voice possible because I really don't feel like having to repeat myself for the fiftieth time) I'm still researching and and am looking forward to sharing my findings with the rest of the non-brain-dead community but it appears that lackeys like yourself would prefer nothing less than to remain a constant distraction and/or a bane to collaborative research but that's okay by me because your continued trolling lets me know that I'm on the right track. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Well, that's not expressing your views in totality, is it? I'd say that's a cop out, at best, and plagiarism at worst. Do you understand NOVA's explanation? How does it suit the situation more appropriately than the path of least resistance? I am curious to know how the Pancake Theory actually works, or how it complies with the Conservation of Energy or Momentum!! There must be a simple explanation, right? Occam's Razor to the rescue. NOVA never got into the science behind the collapse, it relied on camera angles, sound track and subconscious rendering of emotions based on sympathy for the victims. I recall one of the main professionals used in the 10 second sound bytes was a supporter of a fellow who proposes that acid rain had a big hand in the collapse of 7. The Pancake Theory cannot account for the squibs either; which are the high energy, high velocity puffs of smoke exploding trough windows at least a hundred feet ahead of the collapse, indicating some other force at work. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Krypton, here's a nice resource if you insist on arguing with the mentally-deranged. Might be a nice place to start to illustrate that controlled demolition doesn't fit in with the "physics" on the day, despite the retards proclaiming otherwise. There are all kinds of technical documents well beyond the capacity for self-proclaimed demolition/engineer "expert" liars to grasp. i would recommend just ignoring them though, let them wallow in their own anti-intellectual stupidity. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Krypton, here's a nice resource if you insist on arguing with the mentally-deranged. Might be a nice place to start to illustrate that controlled demolition doesn't fit in with the "physics" on the day, despite the retards proclaiming otherwise. There are all kinds of technical documents well beyond the capacity for self-proclaimed demolition/engineer "expert" liars to grasp. i would recommend just ignoring them though, let them wallow in their own anti-intellectual stupidity. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ |
| quote: |
Witnesses A message to 9/11 conspiracists from someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please take it to heart. http://tinyurl.com/f4ykj It is likely that hundreds of people directly saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Dozens were interviewed by numerous news outlets: Witness List 1 � List 2 � List 3 � List 4 � List 5 � More Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file) http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls Many witnesses were in their cars, in a traffic jam directly in front of the Pentagon. Most of those people drove away and were not interviewed. Below is a summary of the accounts quoted in the lists and spreadsheet summary above. These are mostly accounts that appeared in mainstream media reports. Many more people probably witnessed the attack. From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner. 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size. 7 said it was a Boeing 757. 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief. 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport. 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon. 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole). 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts. 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats. 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged. 3 took photographs of the aftermath. Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings." And of course, 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton That's gold, pure gold. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911...evidencesummary i bet they're all in on it krypton! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I just think it's hilarious that pkc actually said "anti-intellectual stupidity." Talk about Blackwhite deception!! |
seeking the truth no doubt. you can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop him being a fucking dickhead.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} If it comes down to the cold, hard [indestructable] facts of the black box versus the potential of corrupt witnesses, which path would your towering intellect and radical critical thought process lead you? |
provide some evidence that mike walter changed his story at all. he doesn't change it, you fruitcakes just have serious issues with your "research".
now, tell me how that is ANY different to what he said in the beginning you fraud?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that completely depends on the nature of the topic. in this case, i am more than swayed by the hundreds of people that saw a plane crash into a building, the dead bodies of those known to be on flight 77, as well as all the debris left by the impact. so tell me, how do YOU think they snuck the passengers into the pentagon? im really intrigued. |
So why didn't Pentagon survivor April Gallup see any evidence of the alleged plane?
More on April Gallup
This guy says he saw a 20 passenger corporate jet? lol
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} That is an interesting picture, but it only shows me what appears to be a body.. I don't know how anyone would die in that position after colliding with a building. More pictures, or links? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN now, tell me how that is ANY different to what he said in the beginning you fraud? |
| quote: |
Witnesses A message to 9/11 conspiracists from someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please take it to heart. http://tinyurl.com/f4ykj It is likely that hundreds of people directly saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Dozens were interviewed by numerous news outlets: Witness List 1 � List 2 � List 3 � List 4 � List 5 � More Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file) http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls Many witnesses were in their cars, in a traffic jam directly in front of the Pentagon. Most of those people drove away and were not interviewed. Below is a summary of the accounts quoted in the lists and spreadsheet summary above. These are mostly accounts that appeared in mainstream media reports. Many more people probably witnessed the attack. From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner. 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size. 7 said it was a Boeing 757. 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief. 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport. 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon. 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole). 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts. 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats. 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged. 3 took photographs of the aftermath. Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings." And of course, 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} That is an interesting picture, but it only shows me what appears to be a body.. I don't know how anyone would die in that position after colliding with a building. More pictures, or links? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I'd also say it's in amazing condition considering that the plane went through how many feet of reinforced concrete? You would think that they would be smart enough to cover this up better but apparently they're relying on people who are pretty incompetent to do that for them. lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by {b.s.e.} If it comes down to the cold, hard [indestructable] facts of the black box versus the potential of corrupt witnesses, which path would your towering intellect and radical critical thought process lead you? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.