|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 167)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Really cause I could swear I was posting from multiple sources, besides I never really was to found of Alex Jones because of his loud mouth approach.
Does not change the fact that the official story is a bunch of sh1t however. |
Yes. What you don't seem to realise is that many of these "multiple sources" are just copy-pasting from each other. For instance, the nonsense you posted regarding ex italian PM cossiga was (mis)translated and posted on prisonplanet first, and then all the CTs came out of the woordwork with their latest bunch of tripe, without waiting for a real, proper translation or context for his statements (which were nothing more than a mockery of the left in the italian parliament). |
|
|
| culorut |
I am fluent in Italian and I am telling you straight up it was translated correctly.
In fact when I posted what the former president of Italy mentioned about 9/11 it was because I read it in Italian first.
You should think before you post nonsense really but hey if you want to keep digging your own hole (and the official story) be my guest.... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I am fluent in Italian and I am telling you straight up it was translated correctly.
In fact when I posted what the former president of Italy mentioned about 9/11 it was because I read it in Italian first.
You should think before you post nonsense really but hey if you want to keep digging your own hole (and the official story) be my guest.... |
Well, if you are fluent in italian why did you cut and paste a post that was obviously incorrect (some REALLY important changes were made from the original to the stuff appearing on 911 sites).
And really, if you are fluent, there's no excuses for totally misunderstanding what he was saying is there? How did you miss it? It’s an honest question. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
of course i am. you know, the reasoned and rational people that arent still wasting their time trying to find anomalies regarding 9/11 and then posting the next bit of irrelevant nonsense like it’s the new smoking gun, completely failing to see how stupid they are.
And im still waiting for one of you no-planers to tell us what really happened to flight 77. |
So reason and rationality are defined as being a tool. Gotcha. Basically anyone that is narrow-minded; easily influenced by perceived figures of authority; and obviously can't connect the dots.
This topic is about "a government cover-up of 9/11". Unfortunately, you've watched too many movies because you go on the assumption that that little statement means evil, corporate white men sitting in a room and coming up with evil plans to rule the world.
However, the article I posted IS in fact relevant (whether you agree or disagree is what's irrelevant), as it directly deals with a contradiction of stories. Nowhere does it talk about bombs being placed in the WTC; a missile hitting the Pentagon, or any other Loose Change BS. It simply talks about the inconsistency between the "official" story and what the FBI documents state happened. Which would lead any rational, thinking person to question the official story. There's lots of other factors that would lead a thinking person down this path, but I won't waste your time seeing as you're done thinking.
Also, if you were part of the rational and reasonable crowd as you like to claim time and time again, then you'd realize that if there was a conspiracy (on any sort of level), it wouldn't just get solved with a simple leaking of a document. Nor would it happen within a span of 5-6 years. Or 10 for that matter. There probably aren't any documents in existence that outline everything that happened, although wouldn't that be great? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
youre ing kidding me right? the "least scientific probability" - you know, because its far more likely that thermite, a ing incindiary ffs brought down one of the biggest buildings in the world, despite the massive logistical nightmare. its far more "probable" that flight 77 disappeared than it is to have crashed into the pentagon. its far more likely that the evil government brought down WTC7 for s and giggles because blackops just love to increase the chance of being discovered as much as possible. |
The pragmatism of excecuting a plan has nothing to do with scientific plausability of theories / explantions regarding the cause of the collapse. NIST in it own analysis acknowledged the extremely low probability of the pancake theory. Stop being so "intellectually dishonest" pkc.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, sorry. i forgot. having a "scientific background" makes up for their obvious dishonesty not to mention their failure to have their bull theories tested by peer review which is a staple in getting credibility. |
Obvious dishonesty? Not sharing your native subjective world veiw doesn't make on "intellectualy dishonest" PKC, you'll have to do better than that. You entire argument is a logial fallacy btw, I've pointed it out before in this thread... it's called "argumentum ad verecundiam." So please, for the last time, stop making a fool of yourself. You know nothing about science, or logic, don't even pretent to understand elementary physics. A complete layman like yourself is an easy audience to sell anything to.
| quote: | | An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, or position of the person asserting it. |
And your coloful language combined with baseless allegations of comprimised intergirty, derision, and school yard bully calibur character reflect nothing more than your own insecurites, far from "proving" anything, and can only be taken as you projecting your insecurites on others.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what would you call those that continuously repeat known fallacies that have been explained over and over and over? if someone knowingly presents facts that are lies and distortions, would you not call them intellectually dishonest? |
What lies? If you're naive enough to buy "evidence" presented years after the fact as being untampered or even original and authentic, well, that's just naive. Goverments lie, including western democracies. It's called "black propaganda," and you'll find it in "respected" meida outlets too, take a lesson from the cold war era. You should also familiarize yourself with what a psyop is. No, that's not a tinfoilhat term, it's an actual formal term, coined in the US, as the military isn't fond of the term "propadanga," plus the term is too simplistic to encompass the implications the term psyop has, which is necessary for successfully carrying out a false flag operation, another term that isn't alien to any intelligence agency in the world.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
id like to know why you support those that repeatedly repeat such fallacies whilst simultaneously avoiding a proper scientific examination of their work?
yeah, only fools like you see anomalies, if they really existed then we would have a nice peer-reviewed analysis which explained these anomalies now wouldnt we? :rolleyes: |
Maybe bacause building don't collapse that ing fast and symmetrically, especially from a ing fire or plane impact. Maybe because there were pool of molten alloys where the base of the stucture would have been weeks after 9-11 (charateristic of controlled demonlitions). Maybe because the seismographs showed a drastic difference (twice in magnitude) in the collapse of two virtually identical systems. I know you don't understand physics, but the only way that is possible an external source of additional kinetic energy to the system, strongly suggesting factoring in demolition explosives going off, which is next to impossible to replicate with respect to linear consistancy in increased KE experimentaly, as being a possibility. There's not many other alternatives to consider for additional KE sources.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what's even more ridiculous is that the controlled demolition hypothesis doesn't actually explain any of these supposed anomalies in the first place, despite your ilk's belief that they are the panacea for everything. |
It actually explains all of them, soemthing we've been over.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh please. trancer and cretinrot have copy-pasted x10 compared to me, the difference being that at least ive ing read the opposing viewpoints and arguments. |
I don't care what they've copy pasted or not and it's irrelevant, they don't direct my cognative experience or thought process.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
there's nothing reasonable or rational in kowtowing before the fantastic with no evidence asides from a juvenile conspiracy mindset to support such positions. Yeah, the entire global engineering community is merely a puppet of the new world order. Seriously dude, grow up. |
No, I don't entertain childish oversimplification like that, but it's quite telling about the limits of your critical reasoning faculties and understanding. It's no wonder why your responses are as reactionary and on par with the standard you'd expect from a school yard bully.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the nonsense that you guys let through your logic senses on a daily basis whilst thumbing your nose at real peer reviewed analysis is ing ridiculous and i am at a loss for you to explain such an asymmetrical level of scepticism. |
I don't need a peer reviewed paper to apply the laws of physics and probability, subjects I'm intimately familiar with unlike you. Just look at the framework of the analysis of peer reveiwed papers, which don't explain any of the analomlies or observable evidence they completey ignore. Pancaking and jet fuel don't explain any of them, and they're clearly there. The actual evidence necessary for conducting an actual scientific investigation in to the collapse isn't even avaible, what a ing coincidence that is now isn't it?
I've already wasted time responding to your childish reactionary post, and wasted quite a bit on this thread in the past when I was actually posting. Every time you were stumped by legitimate questions which you didn't have a copy paste source for, you would have the same reactionary response. Or ask colonel to come to your rescue, who didn't exactly give any definitive answers or refutation eigther other than "well, it could be these others things too" which is fine but it consitant with cognataive dissonace and fiding excuses to accomodate a preconceived notion and worldview. Colonel was at least civil and didn't sink to your level back in the day, but sadly he's jumped on the bandwagon you've been on for a while, except he can hold his own in an actual discussion as opposed to being stumped and resorting to derision, neurotic baseless accusatory rants, and all of that.
I have no desire to waste any more time on this thread or subject as the past has already demonstrated how pointless it is to discuss this topic with you, which is why I stopped posted ages ago to begin with. What's interesting is your ignoring of the blatant inconsistancies and contradictory evidence from official sources unrelated to structural collapse and scientific aspect of event. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
The pragmatism of excecuting a plan has nothing to do with scientific plausability of theories / explantions regarding the cause of the collapse. NIST in it own analysis acknowledged the extremely low probability of the pancake theory. Stop being so "intellectually dishonest" pkc. |
Oh, ok. So when NIST says something you agree with its ok as a reference, but otherwise its bollocks? Gotcha.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Obvious dishonesty? |
Yes, shaolin. Obviously. Like when griffin keeps barking on about the ing air phones, despite the airline in question (sorry cant remember off the top of my head) sending him the details of their airphones and how they were in working order on that day. I would call that dishonest, what would you call it? Selective hearing? :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Not sharing your native subjective world veiw doesn't make on "intellectualy dishonest" PKC, you'll have to do better than that. You entire argument is a logial fallacy btw, I've pointed it out before in this thread... it's called "argumentum ad verecundiam." So please, for the last time, stop making a fool of yourself. |
Oh, I see. We may as well hang up our scientific studies then if referencing them is concurrently a logical fallacy. FYI - asking the troof movement to provide a scientific theory that actually holds water is not a logical fallacy. Im sure there would also be a logical fallacy covering the adherence to fantastic notion devoid of scientific evidence too in case you were wondering. Guess where you fit!
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You know nothing about science, or logic, don't even pretent to understand elementary physics. A complete layman like yourself is an easy audience to sell anything to. |
Ive already told you before you stupid arrogant that I passed logic when you were still in highschool. The fact that you keep parroting BS from stevens etc just goes to show that your understanding of physics is completely bunk, indeed I wouldn’t be surprised if you denied basic concepts because you have such a tendency (or need if you will) to go against established understanding. One doesn't need a degree in physics to realise the controlled demolition hypothesis is complete and utter nonsense.
Funny how first you argue against the general accepted scientific papers, and then turn around and criticise people for their lack of scientific knowledge. You cant have it both ways einstein.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And your coloful language combined with baseless allegations of comprimised intergirty, derision, and school yard bully calibur character reflect nothing more than your own insecurites, far from "proving" anything, and can only be taken as you projecting your insecurites on others. |
Oh, so now youre a ing psychologist? How about my language stems from being surrounded by intelligent fools that choose to ignore evidence or believe in fantastic (and impossible) notions? That obviously intelligent people can still believe there were bombs planted in the buildings, even tho these "bombs" arent explosives at all? I couldn’t give a about my conduct in this thread. The only "insecurities" I have is that I feel insecure in a world where smart people can fall victim to the most stupid ideas.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
What lies? If you're naive enough to buy "evidence" presented years after the fact as being untampered or even original and authentic, well, that's just naive. Goverments lie, including western democracies. |
Yes yes yes. Anything and everything that isnt on alex jones' radio show is the playground of the corporate media, the new world order, the bush regimes hidden agenda, and the PNAC writers. Gotcha. The obvious problem with this is that scientific analysis is published and free to be questioned by any of your thoroughly discredited sources, but as yet, I am still to see that eventuate. Its just all one big lie schemed by the rockefeller family. They must be pretty smart aye? You know, the way they manage to twist scientific endeavour across the entire planet. Props to them!
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
It's called "black propaganda," and you'll find it in "respected" meida outlets too, take a lesson from the cold war era. You should also familiarize yourself with what a psyop is. No, that's not a tinfoilhat term, it's an actual formal term, coined in the US, as the military isn't fond of the term "propadanga," plus the term is too simplistic to encompass the implications the term psyop has, which is necessary for successfully carrying out a false flag operation, another term that isn't alien to any intelligence agency in the world. |
Right. And how do these mechanisms of control brainwash scientists across the globe to produce erroneous, peer-reviewed analyses?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Maybe bacause building don't collapse that ing fast and symmetrically, especially from a ing fire or plane impact. |
Don't they? Says who? How would you have expected the towers to fall, given their very specific design? Topple over like a cut tree?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Maybe because there were pool of molten alloys where the base of the stucture would have been weeks after 9-11 (charateristic of controlled demonlitions). |
Not sure where you're getting your ideas but molten alloys is has NOTHING to do with controlled demolitions. CDs (such as RDX) shatter steel, they don't melt it. Any argument to the contrary is quite simply, wrong.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Maybe because the seismographs showed a drastic difference (twice in magnitude) in the collapse of two virtually identical systems. |
No, they didn't. we've already argued about this and good ol colonel explained it to you.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I know you don't understand physics, but the only way that is possible an external source of additional kinetic energy to the system, strongly suggesting factoring in demolition explosives going off, which is next to impossible to replicate with respect to linear consistancy in increased KE experimentaly, as being a possibility. There's not many other alternatives to consider for additional KE sources. |
There were no major differences in the kinetic energies expelled, you merely swallowed that BS about "the power of two tonnes of TNT" which, apart from being nonsense, is easily explained by the differences in the time it took each tower to collapse.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I don't care what they've copy pasted or not and it's irrelevant, they don't direct my cognative experience or thought process. |
In other words "despite the fact that I have zero evidence to support my claims, ill still cling desperately to them". Gotcha.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
No, I don't entertain childish oversimplification like that, but it's quite telling about the limits of your critical reasoning faculties and understanding. It's no wonder why your responses are as reactionary and on par with the standard you'd expect from a school yard bully. |
Which is nothing less than your ilk deserve.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I don't need a peer reviewed paper to apply the laws of physics and probability, subjects I'm intimately familiar with unlike you. Just look at the framework of the analysis of peer reveiwed papers, which don't explain any of the analomlies or observable evidence they completey ignore. Pancaking and jet fuel don't explain any of them, and they're clearly there. The actual evidence necessary for conducting an actual scientific investigation in to the collapse isn't even avaible, what a ing coincidence that is now isn't it? |
Oh yes, those anomalies! The ones that are explained to you and your people over and over again but they'll still bring them out, just like good ol david griffin and his air phones.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I've already wasted time responding to your childish reactionary post, and wasted quite a bit on this thread in the past when I was actually posting. Every time you were stumped by legitimate questions which you didn't have a copy paste source for, you would have the same reactionary response. |
If we're talking about the "bombs in the towers" scenario, not one of you have provided a single piece of evidence that is "stump" worthy. I react the way I do because of your (and others) idiotic arguments that ignore virtually everything else going on around them. You never did explain how the secret government operatives hid tons and tons of thermite in an operation that would have taken months of a large, full-time work crew to achieve. But you'll just dismiss questions like that because that's the mindset youre fond of, "if it doesn’t fit into the equation ill just ignore it, who cares where that pentagon plane REALLY flew, it just didn’t fly into the pentagon!"
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Or ask colonel to come to your rescue, |
Hey, he's an engineer. Are you saying asking for expert advice on the topic is a bad thing? Or are you just that all-powerful and all-knowing you don't need to?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
who didn't exactly give any definitive answers or refutation eigther other than "well, it could be these others things too" which is fine but it consitant with cognataive dissonace and fiding excuses to accomodate a preconceived notion and worldview. Colonel was at least civil and didn't sink to your level back in the day, but sadly he's jumped on the bandwagon you've been on for a while, except he can hold his own in an actual discussion as opposed to being stumped and resorting to derision, neurotic baseless accusatory rants, and all of that. |
Oh, of course. Because shaolin is always such a model of calm and restraint. Youre such a whinging hypocrite.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I have no desire to waste any more time on this thread or subject as the past has already demonstrated how pointless it is to discuss this topic with you, which is why I stopped posted ages ago to begin with. What's interesting is your ignoring of the blatant inconsistancies and contradictory evidence from official sources unrelated to structural collapse and scientific aspect of event. |
Lol, the irony is quite amusing. Most of these "blatant inconsistencies" are only inconsistent to the willfully ignorant. Most, if not all of them have been plausibly explained, but you and your fellow paranoid children just ignore them, in favour of unsubstantiated rumours and half-assed "studies".
It must be really interesting living in your world. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
The pragmatism of excecuting a plan has nothing to do with scientific plausability of theories / explantions regarding the cause of the collapse. |
I disagree, implementation, i would argue, is half of the battle. Its one thing to say that a certain device or what not could create the observed results, but its another thing to prove that it is feasible to pull off. Lets say there is a man who hijacks a plane with a gun, but no one knows what kind. One person could assume he had a small 9mm berretta and had somehow skirted security screening, while another one could assume he had brought on an M-16. Which one is more plausible? clearly the assumption of the small concelable handgun is far more likely than a full sized assault rifle?
| quote: |
Maybe bacause building don't collapse that ing fast and symmetrically, especially from a ing fire or plane impact. |
Where is your proof of this? How many buildings have you seen collapse due to unintentional causes? Better yet, why has no one produced a properly peer reviewed theory? I know you seem to hold a great deal of disdain for professional organizations. but they are the only body that is capable of certifying the expertise and credibility of professionals. I could care less if someone had 9 PhD degrees in physics, that doesn't mean he knows anything whatsoever about structural dynamics of buildings.
| quote: | | Maybe because there were pool of molten alloys where the base of the stucture would have been weeks after 9-11 (charateristic of controlled demonlitions) |
Really? this is a characteristic of controlled demolitions? funny, i have never read any paper or report that shows this as a decisive indicator.
| quote: | | Maybe because the seismographs showed a drastic difference (twice in magnitude) in the collapse of two virtually identical systems. I know you don't understand physics, but the only way that is possible an external source of additional kinetic energy to the system, strongly suggesting factoring in demolition explosives going off, which is next to impossible to replicate with respect to linear consistancy in increased KE experimentaly, as being a possibility. There's not many other alternatives to consider for additional KE sources. |
Hrmmm really? what about those little things called impulse and momentum? One possible explanation for the extra KE shown in the seismograph is that one of the towers may have had a larger, more structurally intact "piece" impact the ground acting as a single mass thus creating a larger impulse spike. A second explanation is the foundation caissons. New York City sits on an undulating bedrock formation that, unlike other areas in the Laurentian regions, is not a relatively homogeneous makeup. Caissons for the two buildings bored into different mineral deposit layers could transmit P waves much more intensely than others. It depends on the absorption of the mineral. harder minerals transmit more energy.
| quote: | | I don't need a peer reviewed paper to apply the laws of physics and probability, subjects I'm intimately familiar with unlike you. |
the problem with physics is it neglects practicality. Engineers take the theoretical and make it practical. While essentially all structures are based on Newton's laws, the real world just cant be simplified to the level of (sigma)Fx=(sigma)Fy=(sigma)Fz=0
here is a good article that explains the difference between physics and engineering link
Frankly it may sound appathetic, but i really could care less about the political motivations behind 911. The only part that concerns me is that for an industry that is currently facing a major shortage of qualified individuals, I am seeing far too many "experts" jumping out of the woodwork and crying foul based on their new found expertise in structural analysis courtesy of watching youtube videos. I belive, and the rest of the qualified individuals do as well, that the FEMA account for why the buildings collapsed is the most logical and probably failure mode that has been presented so far. Im not saying its the word of god but It is the only significantly reviewed theorem and frankly i think its the closest we can get to the truth (behind the failure) you lot can continue to nit pick each other over the time line of the hijackings and what not, frankly you all are probably far more qualified (and arguably have far more time to deicate to this) on this topic than i am.
For the most part i think the discourse in this thread has been pretty good (a few are just complete idiots, but they know who they are), a few of us get a little hot headed and un professional at times but we are all allowed our indiscretions.
and in parting i leave you with this humble reminder of what we have all achieved with this thread
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
So reason and rationality are defined as being a tool. Gotcha. Basically anyone that is narrow-minded; easily influenced by perceived figures of authority; and obviously can't connect the dots. |
oh yeah, because conspiracy theory is just a codeword for "open minded". gotcha.
i DO wonder tho - who would you ask about the collapse of a building - a structural engineer or the maker of a youtube video? forgive me if that is being influenced by "figures of authority". next time you go to the hospital make sure youre seen by the janitor instead of the guy that spent 6 years at med school.
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
This topic is about "a government cover-up of 9/11". Unfortunately, you've watched too many movies because you go on the assumption that that little statement means evil, corporate white men sitting in a room and coming up with evil plans to rule the world. |
actually mate, if you read the last 200 odd pages you will see that almost every tinfoil hat nutcase is an advocate of exactly that. the new world order and their evil machinations. forgive me if i lumped you into that category prematurely.
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
However, the article I posted IS in fact relevant (whether you agree or disagree is what's irrelevant), as it directly deals with a contradiction of stories. |
so, youre more of a "let it happen on purpose" kinda guy? does the possibility of extreme government incompetence enter your head, or do you prefer to believe it was deliberately ignored by the bush admin and the intel services for their own nefarious ends?
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Nowhere does it talk about bombs being placed in the WTC; a missile hitting the Pentagon, or any other Loose Change BS. It simply talks about the inconsistency between the "official" story and what the FBI documents state happened. Which would lead any rational, thinking person to question the official story. There's lots of other factors that would lead a thinking person down this path, but I won't waste your time seeing as you're done thinking. |
fair enough, point taken. im more interested (if thats the right word for it) in the controlled demo ideas, but there's no doubt that intelligence inconsistencies do exist, but again i havent seen a plausible argument linking that to "let it happen on purporse".
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Also, if you were part of the rational and reasonable crowd as you like to claim time and time again, then you'd realize that if there was a conspiracy (on any sort of level), it wouldn't just get solved with a simple leaking of a document. Nor would it happen within a span of 5-6 years. Or 10 for that matter. There probably aren't any documents in existence that outline everything that happened, although wouldn't that be great? |
well, please explain to me how all the other nefarious activities of the US government such as abuse of prisoners, secret prisons, secret wire tapping, the outting of plame etc etc etc all broke pretty fast?
the idea that a government can keep something like an orchestrated 911 (or even a "let it happen on purpose") secret is ludicrous when compared to all the things that they havent been able to keep out of the media.
the idea that the evil government is one large "hive-mind" with individuals all working towards one end is just naive nonsense, and the fact remains that the entire 911 issue has been looked at by far too many people for the sinister truth to remain hidden. despite what the paranoid freaks like shaolin believe, had the bush administration carried out these attacks as argued by the troofers, they would've gotten caught. pure and simple. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | | Or ask colonel to come to your rescue, who didn't exactly give any definitive answers or refutation eigther other than "well, it could be these others things too" which is fine but it consitant with cognataive dissonace and fiding excuses to accomodate a preconceived notion and worldview. |
Ok can i just point out that "consitant with cognataive dissonace and fiding excuses to accomodate a preconceived notion and worldview" is essentially what every counter theory behind the collapse has been about. They are all based on the preconceived notion that it couldn't have fallen due to the plane impact alone because it seemed to fall at free fall speeds.
Now everyone pop a midol, sit back and get back to the realm of constructive debate, or else im going to recommend we take this to the COR so we can all act like arse holes. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| As expected, your reponse is nothing more than an assertion of ludirous quantitative statements and entirely lack any qualitative. Congradulations, give yourself a pat yourself on the back, again, continue with your dellusional rant of obsenities (based on your assertions of "intellectual dishonesty"). An oversimplistic take and understanding has nothing to with "intellectual honesty" and is counter intuitive to your baseless value judgments. In my defense, I've acknowledged loosing my cool myself, so your emotive accusation isn't something I haven't acknowledged myself but to a fairer and milder degree. But it on issues regarding human suffereing and opression, not claims of getting upset regarding intellectual dishonesty, which isn't exactly believable. And now PKC will loose his mind once again. You're obsessed with this thread, and harrasing (not arguing) any one who isn't a believer of the pancake theory. It really speaks volumes about your internal conflicts and insecurities, just something you might want to consider... before you decide to reply with the Wrath of Odin, very uncharacteristic of a pothead, or someone who's subconscious is in harmony with their conscious mind. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
Ok can i just point out that "consitant with cognataive dissonace and fiding excuses to accomodate a preconceived notion and worldview" is essentially what every counter theory behind the collapse has been about. They are all based on the preconceived notion that it couldn't have fallen due to the plane impact alone because it seemed to fall at free fall speeds.
Now everyone pop a midol, sit back and get back to the realm of constructive debate, or else im going to recommend we take this to the COR so we can all act like arse holes. |
Just to let you know Colonel, I appriciate your civility once again. We were debating the subject in the past, unfortunately I lost interst a long time ago for reasons already metnioned and others. I'd have to do a fair bit of research and studying to discuss finer details with knowledge you take for granted by virtue of your major. Frankly, I've lost all motivation to undertake something like, especially that just for the sake of discussion. |
|
|
| celestial thug |
absolutely elements within the US government had somethign to do with it. What it is, I dont know, but who stands to gain more from it. 911 is one large distraction away from the horror created in its aftermath. The troofers are doing what the JFK'ers did before them. Run around in circles of speculation while the real bad guys "gets away with it".
The planners i belive are not the US government itself, nor are they in a cave somewhere. They are the guys who have the money for world conflicts, and who gains from them no matter who wins or looses.
banksters! |
|
|
|
|
