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...

??? 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:

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.

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:

Here we go with the "sheeple" bullshit again. Honestly, fuck off.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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):

"We were set up to fail."

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.

It wasn't? It sure looks like it was to me.

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?

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:

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.

I think it's funny that your traitorous ass even pretends to be an American.

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...

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 Krypton Your theories are so full of fallacies, it's funny you label every one of mine as fallacious.

What theories? The only theory that I have is that government has covered up the truth of what happened on 9/11. There's nothing fallacious about that.

Hence, the reason why millions of people are still trying to find the truth which has been buried amidst all of their lies.

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...

Damn, you really are a fool. I'm sorry that I ever even bothered with you.

Next.

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)

I'm glad that you spoke up because (however convenient for him) that he probably would never have figured it out.

It feels like I have to repeat myself ten times before he even begins to acknowledge certain things and even then he will often just twist my words around to make it sound like I said something entirely different. LMAO - and he wonders why some people think he's a disinfo agent?

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.

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

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!!

lol... Trancer's method of response... Me: "YOU SUCK"... Trancer: "No, YOU suck!"

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?

Again, if you're argument is so strong, get a prosecution genius. How's that for a straw man?

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.

Nonsense, I'm skeptical of your version of the truth. Notice how I said "version". You've fooled yourself into thinking you know it all. But oh, you're the bringer of the light, sorry Jesus...

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.

You obediantly tow the line of the radical libertarian agenda. How's that for a sheep?

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.

Oh yea, I work for the CIA. What a fucking joke..lol...wow, you never cease to project your blatant paranoia.

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):

Fallacy of the numbers huh? So because some people believe there's a cover up, that automatically means there is a cover up? LOL...funny...

quote:

It wasn't? It sure looks like it was to me.

I was linked a post where BSE posted a video with no one quoted. To be honest, I don't know enough about physics to debate a counter point. Gee, golly, did I just admit I didn't know something? Maybe you should learn something from that...I believe the scenario laid out by NOVA in their documentary "Why the Towers Fell".

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.

Waaaa Waaaaa you're twisting my words, oh noezzz!!! That is what is implied by your statements. You said, "the official one that served as the lynchpin that unconstitutionally got us into two wars, got us the unconstitutional Patriot Act, the unconstitutional Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and all kinds of other, assorted unconstitutional police state legislation which has since been directed at the civilian population here in America while further destroying our economy at the same time?"

So in essence, what is implied from this statement is the president's policies were based on the "official story", for unconstitutional acts, and because the president did these things, the official story must be a cover up. Tell that to a judge, and see what they think.

quote:

I think it's funny that your traitorous ass even pretends to be an American.

Now I'm a traitor? First government agent, now traitor. Fuck off you arrogant fuck...

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.

Ok then, take your case to the unbraindead court, and get some people prosecuted for treason. Until then, your case is moot, insignificant, unsubstantiated. You've got nothing until you can take it to a judge....

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Oct-27-2008 at 04:38

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.

I'm really not the one to ask, as I don't know enough about physics to argue on point about it. I'm just telling you what my opinion of it is. Take it or leave it. I don't believe bombs destroyed the towers.

As for your take on the NOVA documentary. I'm not surprised. I don't think anything would change your guy's minds.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Oct-27-2008 at 04:34

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/

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are intellectually honest: independent thinkers are always "conspiracy theorists", dupes for shoddy research, Alex Jones and the 'Truth Movement' etc. They rarely acknowledge logical fallacies in their arguments.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include "conspiracy theorist," "tin foil hat," "lying ****," "truther," "paranoid," "uneducated fuck" and "intellectual dishonesty." What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to think critically themselves.


5. Inability to employ or understand logic. Aided by the principle in above, self proclaimed skeptics never notice that the small ambiguities [or unknown variables] in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any "official" accounts; a very common example would be the appeal to authority fallacy with respect to arguments regarding the cause of the WTC collapse.


9. Ignoring previous conspiracies and atrocities, perpetuating their pathological denial and cognitive dissonance. This dismissal makes critical thought unlikely, in order to try and demonstrate that their coincidence [or conspiracy] theory should be accorded some weight. They do not pause to reflect that the nonsense they are touting is almost always far more unlikely and complicated than observable patterns in human history and real-life.


6. Inability to tell good theories from bad. Self proclaimed skeptics have no place for questioning the integrity of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by authority, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it supposedly answers be accepted, as if intellectual inquiry were a matter of submitting to logical fallacies. While they do this, of course, they will claim to be "educated" and abuse the skeptics of conventional (or "official") accounts for apparently lacking same.


So....how about that black box data from Flight 77 that was recovered under the Freedom of Information Act that does not accurately portray the Official Lie? Why does the black box data report an approach from the North, and the Commission reports an approach from the South? Why were the altitudes falsified? Because the approach and altitude of the plane in actuality was from the North, and too high to knock over the poles!

You're beat, bud. Get over it and troll somewhere else.

__edit__

___________________
Wave is to particle as zero is to one as bagpipes are to modem noises.

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/

That's gold, pure gold.

___________________

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.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911...evidencesummary

i bet they're all in on it krypton!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That's gold, pure gold.

I just think it's hilarious that pkc actually said "anti-intellectual stupidity."

Talk about Blackwhite deception!!