Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, not hell bent on having an argument. just merely asking you to respond to the evidence with which you've been provided, go and do further research, or show us why your questions are even slightly meaningful.
youve been given a number of reasons why the government hasnt released this phantom tape, and you still havent produced any evidence to back up your claim that there is any more to see.
you try and say its "suspicious" that there isnt any more video, without showing exactly what about it is suspicious. youre given reasons why, and youre just discarding them. if youre going to discard them so easily you would need an equally plausible alternative. as you dont, i question your commitment to really analysing the facts.
Please read my edit.
I did not try to say it was suspicious, I questioned if anyone stopped to think that maybe it was.
I don't feel the need to respond to "evidence" that you claim true. I will consider it, and research it, and make my own conclusion, but there is no need for my input to what you think, when I have already stated I have no specific viewpoint.
The questions are meaningful to me because I want to know the answers. If you don't think they are worth the time responding to, don't bother.
As for there being "more to see", apparently there was. After the release of 5 frames, which again I will remind you was denied existing initially, they released a longer video that occrider kindly provided.
Theresa
Alright, I have to go to bed.
Thanks for the open-minded "discussion". :rolleyes:
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
EDIT: I asked a question, you gave me your answer, I asked more questions, you got defensive. I continued to ask questions, and suddenly I am a nieve, stupid, talking, dick.
come now theresa. tsk tsk. how easily we forget.
quote:
Talk about naivete
so ing brainwashed
Learn to use paragraphs, it makes reading and replying to your response a million times easier.
all my comments were in a direct relationship to these ;)
quote:
As for there being "more to see", apparently there was.
you saying it over and over isnt making it any more true ;)
edit: oh yeah, me getting "defensive" was in relation to
quote:
Why are you so willing to accept what you have been told
i just dont like assumptions like that, especially if theyre not accurate. its just bad logic.
Theresa
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
come now theresa. tsk tsk. how easily we forget.
all my comments were in a direct relationship to these ;)
you saying it over and over isnt making it any more true ;)
Way to go taking quotes out of context.
Naive - using same descriptive word to describe me earlier.
ing Brainwashed - claiming that I am not
Learn to use paragraphs - hey.. that was good advice, and yea, it was a little curt, but you know what? After essentially being called a talking moron, I wasn't feeling too nice.
And to be honest with you, it's 6:30AM and I am beginning to confuse who is who and who said what, so please forgive me for using naive against one person when the other was who said it first :rolleyes:
LOL, this is getting sillier by the moment.
Goodnight :D
DJ Mikey Mike
I ing LOVE it when someone so clearly out of occrider's league of intelligence manages to rattle him. Like a fly in a superincumbent verbal storm.
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Way to go taking quotes out of context.
Naive - using same descriptive word to describe me earlier.
ing Brainwashed - claiming that I am not
Learn to use paragraphs - hey.. that was good advice, and yea, it was a little curt, but you know what? After essentially being called a talking moron, I wasn't feeling too nice.
And to be honest with you, it's 6:30AM and I am beginning to confuse who is who and who said what, so please forgive me for using naive against one person when the other was who said it first :rolleyes:
LOL, this is getting sillier by the moment.
Goodnight :D
Theresa, I could care less about the drama behind the petty bs, the talking, and who started what (I will admit fault to all of the above, I don't care). The original point of this thread was to go into an intelligent discussion of the specific details of your concerns which I still invite you to do so if you would like to continue to the discussion (offline if you would like). Other than that, I have no desires to argue meaningless intangibles.
LiquidX
............ and I still cant see the video. :whip:
arnoldj
Since I just singned up here to this forum, I'm to lazy to go back and read this thread from pg.1 :tongue2 But I most say there are some unreleased videos out there that the govt has but they are holding them back so they can trial some of the terrorist suspects that they currently have in custody, for the 9/11 attacks. Currently you have groups trying to pressure the govt to release them... it wouldnt surprise me in the enar future if new videos are brought to light, since the US now is ready to build a case against those suspected terrorists
It amazes when people release some type of fake evidince to say it was a govt conspiracy :rolleyes:
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
blah blah blah
colonelcrisp
this is why the pdd could never invade the cor and fill our screen with pdd posts. cause you guys take 40 mins to put a post together lol....
asfdz
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
They really should reconsider the development of such large buildings, or perhaps consider a new design that can make them emergency friendly.
+1
colonelcrisp
while its a good idea theresa, there isnt much else you can do for buildings that size because of weight. the more protection you put in the building the more weight it adds. the towers were very well designed, even designed to withstand the impact of the planes. just not the fires that followed...... with todays fire protection technology they are alot safer especially in fire conditions. the old style of fire proofing for steel structures was a spray on type insulation. now they have a thick matt like substance that is epoxy'ed onto the steel members so that it wont fall off from shock or impact.
